Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Petitioner Mukhtiar Singh, a lifer, lodged in Central Jail, Patiala, was awarded jail punishment on 3.3.1987. As he was deprived of the benefit of furlough under Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, on account of said jail punishment, he has challenged the validity of the said punishment that the same is illegal for want of judicial appraisal and proper inquiry and has further contended that he should not be denied benefit of furlough.

Concededly the punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the jail authorities without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge. For this reference may be made to clause (e) of para No. 8 of the written statement, in the corresponding clause of which para of the petition, it has been contended that the order of punishment passed on 3.3.1987 has not so far been judicially appraised as required under the directions of the Supreme Court. It was held in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R., 1980 S.C. 1579, that no punishment can be awarded to a prisoner without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge.

No proper inquiry appears to have been conducted by the Jail Superintendent either, as contemplated by section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894. It is nowhere suggested if he recorded statements of any prisoners and in so doing he associated the delinquent prisoners. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents could not show me from the record if statement of any coprisoner was recorded in arriving at the suggested conclusion. Proceedings under Section 46 of the Prisons Act are quasijudicial in nature and the order passed under that section brings penal consequences to a prisoner. It has drastic effect on his jail life as the same could result in forfeiture of all the remissions earned by him. Therefore, these proceedings should always be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In compliance with the said provision of law, besides recording of evidence to prove a fact, it should be recorded in the presence of a prisoner as the same is sought to be used against him. In the absence thereof, the punishing authority cannot be said to have applied its mind and there could not be any determination as contemplated in section 46 ibid. This is the only recognised manner in which Superintendent can determine upon any jail offence.

It was held in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 129, that it is apparent from the statutory provisions that the Jail Superintendent has to determine as to whether a convict has committed any jail offence. He having not so determined in this case, the punishment also becomes invalid on that score as well.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned punishment awarded by the Jail Authorities is liable to be quashed. It, accordingly, is quashed with a further direction that the same shall not be an impediment in the way of petitioner to get relief of parole or furlough under Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

JUDGMENT accordingly.