Davinder Paul Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to quashment of jail punishment awarded to the petitionersconvicts vide order of Superintendent Central Jail, Ludhiana on 12111986, hereby on report of Deputy Superintendent Factory dated 10111486 Davinder Paul Singh petitioner was awarded the following punishment :

i) out or eight days in earned remission.

ii) The said convict was to be kept in Block No. 7 under para 575 of Punjab Jail Manual to watch his conduct.

The other petitioners, namely, Ranjit Singh, Mangal Singh, Joginder Singh and Lakhbir Singh were awarded jail punishment with regard to the same incident, which took place on 10111986 at about 430 p.m. after closing the factory and handing over the convict to Head Warder Chakar, the Deputy Superintendent Factory was having a round of the factory. On the same evening at about 4.35 p.m. on receipt of information that some convicts were beating another convict Malkiat Singh, the Deputy Superintendent Factory along with Kirpa Ram came out of the factory, and saw Devinder Paul Singh, Mangal Singh, Joginder Singh and Lakhbir Singh present there. Davinder Paul Singh was abusing and beating Malkiat Singh who was bleeding due to injuries on his head. Head Warder Kirpa Ram tried to intervene the aforesaid prisoners from fighting with each other. At that time Lakhbir Singh attacked Kirpa Ram, Head Warder while others abused him. They were brought under control by using minimum force and were sent to the cell till further orders. The said convicts were not properly doing their (labour) work in the factory, in spite of the advice given to them. Besides reference is also made in the return concerning other jail punishments awarded to Ranjit Singh petitioner, as also concerning the conduct of Mangal Singh for committing an offence under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. while he was released on parole.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that proper procedure for holding enquiry against them was not followed. Neither the statements of the convicts, or. persons concerned were recorded, nor any show cause notice was given to the petitioners. It was further pleaded that neither proper enquiry was ever conducted by the Superintendent Jail, nor the petitioners were given opportunity either to crossexamine the witnesses, or to lead evidence in their defence. Nor any proper enquiry under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 was conducted by the Superintendent jail.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted that it wag obligatory on the part of the Superintendent Central Jai, to hold proper enquiry, in order to determine whether the petitioners have committed any jail offence. After giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence and after hearing them the Superintendent Jail could legally come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioners have committed any jail offence and only in that case jail punishment could be awarded to the petitioners.

Reliance in this respect has rightly been placed on Single Bench authority of this Court in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(2) C.L.R. 129 wherein relying upon Division Bench authority of Bombay High Court in Daniel H. Walcott J. Prisoner at Central Prison, Nagpur v. Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, 1972(1) Criminal Law Journal 673, it was held that the Superintendent. (Jail) has to determine as to whether a convict, has committed any jail offence. The word `determine'' means "to come to a decision". It implies that the punishing authority has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and reach a conclusion. It is implicit in this process that the delinquent convict is associated with the process of determination. The statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts, have to be recorded in the presence of the convict. Thereafter, he has to be given an opportunity of being heard so that he may refute the allegations made against him.

Admittedly, in the instant case, no proper or valid enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent Central Jail, Ludhiana, as contemplated under Section 46(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 in order to determine, or to come to a decision as to whether the petitioners committed any jail offence. Only after examining the material witnesses and granting due opportunity to the petitioners to crossexamine such witnesses and after affording adequate opportunity to lead evidence in defence, as well as right to be heard, the Superintendent Central Jail, Ludhiana could legally conclude as to whether the petitioners had committed any jail offence or not. After reaching such a conclusion, the jail punishment could be awarded to the petitioners. In these circumstances mere fact that the jail punishment awarded to the petitioners after judicial appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, was approved on 9121986, would not be sufficient to cure the inherent defects either concerning holding of proper enquiry, or in awarding jail punishment to the petitioners as detailed above.

For the foregoing reasons, the jail punishment awarded to the petitioners concerning the incident in jail which took place on 10111986 cannot be legally sustained. The impugned order of jail punishment awarded by Superintendent Central Jail, Ludhiana, is accordingly set aside and this petition is allowed.