A.S.NEHRA,J - (1.) SHIV Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing jail punishments dated 15.6.89, 12.3.90 and 15.11.90 awarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak.
(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 30.3.1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The petitioner remained as undertrial prisoner from 4.7.1987 to 29.3.1988 and thereafter he is undergoing life imprisonment and on 9.12.1990 he was transferred from District Jail, Rohtak to Central Jail, Hissar. The petitioner has stated in his petition that he has been denied the concession of parole and furlough by the jail authorities on the ground that he has committed three jail offences although the petitioner has enjoyed two weeks parole from 16.2.90 to 3.3.90 one week parole from 16.6.1990 to 24.6.90 and thereafter he was released on parole on 28.6.1990 for six weeks. It was further alleged in the petition that he was implicated in a false case by the jail authorities on 15.6.1989 on the ground that he had a quarrel with another prisoner Bijender and that Bijender got an injury on his nose. It is further stated in the petition that in consequence of the alleged incident, he was kept in a separate cell and a cut of seven days was imposed by respondent No. 2 in the remission. It is further alleged that he was not given any opportunity whatsoever to defend himself nor he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined by respondent No. 2 meaning thereby that the punishment dated 15.6.1989 was awarded without affording him any opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses or to defend himself. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the alleged confession made by him has been made the sole basis for the punishment.
(3.) IT is further alleged by the petitioner that similarly on 12.3.1990, the petitioner was implicated in another false case on the allegation that he had sent a false certificate with regard to his sister's marriage. In this case, the petitioner was awarded punishment and a cut of four days was imposed in his remissions. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that neither the said false certificate was ever shown to him nor its contents were put to him. The petitioner never submitted such an affidavit as is alleged nor he was ever afforded any opportunity to defend himself or to cross-examine the witnesses examined by respondent No. 2.;