NEPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Nepal Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 18-10-1980 and since then he is confined in jail. At present, he is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Bathinda. While undergoing sentence, he had been awarded jail punishments on 24-1-1982, 2510-1982 and 18-3-1985. The first and the third jail punishments were for the reason that the petitioner was found in toxicating condition and the second on the ground that he quarrelled with co-prisoner Baldev Singh. Those punishments are proving as impediments in the way of the petitioner to get release on furlough or on parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and for the said reasons he has challenged the validity of those punishments contending that they are illegal. The petitioner has contended that no proper inquiry was held, that he was not given reasonable opportunity to explain his position and that no judicial appraisal was obtained.

(2.) AS is obvious from the written statement placed on the record, these punishments were awarded while the petitioner was confined in Central Jail, Patiala. No record of the said jail is forthcoming to show that proper inquiry as contemplated under the Jail Rules was held against the petitioner before awarding those punishments. No doubt Superintendent Central Jail, Bhatinda was not in a position to provide the same. but respondent No. 1, the State of Punjab, cannot be treated to be helpless in this respect. Nonproduction of the said record for obvious reasons goes in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 46 of the Prisoners Act are quasi-judicial in nature and the order brings penal con-sequences to a prisoner. It has drastic effects on his jail life as the same can result in forfeiture of all the remissions earned by him. Therefore. these proceedings ought to be in conformity with principles of natural justice, Besides recording evidence to prove the offence, it should be recorded in the presence of the prisoner. Also the application of the mind is to be that of the punishing authority. The witnesses are to be examined by the Jail Superintendent himself and the delinquent should also be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. This is the only reasonable manner in which the Superintendent can determine upon any jail offence. In the absence of the relevant record, this, court cannot come to the conclusion that necessary formalities were gone into. It was particularly necessary, as the petitioner has contended to the contrary and there is no specific denial to his said contention. Absence of judicial appraisal further aggravates the situation.