JAI SINGH SEKHON, J. - (1.) SAUDAGAR Singh petitioner has sought quashment of the jail punishment awarded to him on February 10, 1987 by the Superintendent, Central Jail Ludhiana, under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 contending that the punishment was awarded to him without following the proper procedure. It was further averred that no opportunity was afforded to him to cross-examine the witnesses. Copy of the order was not even served upon him.
(2.) IN the return filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, the allegations of the petitioner were controverted. On the other hand, it was averred that on February 10, 1987 at about 5 p.m. Head Warder. Jai Krishnan and Head Warder Inderjit Lal had searched the petitioner in his barrack and 8 intoxicant tablets were recovered from his possession and that a regular, enquiry Was held and which the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, necessary approval for the punishment awarded was obtained from the learned Sessions Judge vide latter's order dated March 9,1987. To settle the controversy whether the proper procedure was followed, original record was summoned which has been produced by Sukhjit Singh, Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail Ludhiana. The Superintendent, Central Jail Ludhiana, had passed the following order : "Prisoner is present. He has been heard. H.W. Jai Kishan and H.W. Inderjit Lal also present. The prisoner has been given an opportunity to cross-examine the above-cited two witnesses. Prisoner has admitted his fault in my presence. Hence the offence is proved." A perusal of the original record does not reveal the making of statements by Head Warders Jai Kishan and Inderjit Lal. Thus, the observation of the Superintendent Jail in the order that the prisoner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is all in the air, especially when the petitioner alleges that he was not even apprised of the substance of the charge against him. No doubt, section 46 of the Prisons Act does not prescribe any specific procedure for holding the enquiry yet all the same, rules of natural justice had to be observed in such enquiry in order to avoid prejudice to the prisoner. Reference can be made in this regard to Single Bench decision of this Court in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(2) CLR 129, in which reliance had been made on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Danial H. Walcott J. Prisoner at Central Prison. Nagpur v. Superintendent, Nappur Central Prison, 1972(1) Criminal Law Journal 673.
(3.) THE matter does not rest here, as the alleged confession of the prisoner before the Superintendent Jail was not recorded in the words of the prisoner and thus this Court is at a disadvantage to ascertain the voluntary nature or genuineness of the confession. This, the above-referred proceedings before the Superintendent Jail culminating in the passing of the punishment order stand vitiated for non-observing the rules of natural justice and not allowing the prisoner proper opportunity to defend himself.;