Gura Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

Pritpal Singh, J.

The petitioner Gura Singh has challenged the validity of a jail punishment awarded to him by the jail authorities on February 18, 1986 on the ground that no proper enquiry was held and he was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

The respondents in the written statement pleaded that full opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before awarding punishment to him.

On perusal of the relevant jail record I find that the contention of the respondents is factually incorrect. Three witnesses were examined by the jail authorities but the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to crossexamine them. The impugned order of punishment is, therefore, violative of Section 46 of the Prisons Act, which reads as follow

"46. The Superintendent may examine any person touching any such offence and determine thereupon, and punish, such offence by....

While interpreting this Section it was held by this Court in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(2) C.L.R. 129, that it is incumbent upon the punishing authority to associate the prisoner, in the enquiry. Statements of witnesses have to be recorded in his presence. Thereafter he has to be given opportunity of being heard so that he may refute the allegations made against him. It is implicit in this process that the prisoner should be allowed to crossexamine the witnesses produced against him. This opportunity not having been given to the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be quashed.

The result is that the order of punishment dated February 18, 1986, is hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the jail authorities to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.