Gura Singh @ Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

C.N.W. status of detenupetitioner Gura Singh in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1998 was withdrawn by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhatinda by way of punishment awarded to him for sleeping; while on duty from 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. on 27.1.1985. Impugned order is sought to be quashed on the ground having been issued in clear violation and complete disregard of the principles of natural justice and on account of its judicial appraisal having not been obtained.

In reply it was asserted that the impugned order was based on confession of the petitioner and its judicial appraisal was not required to be obtained.

I have heard Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri M.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record.

The main grievance of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Jail in connection with the incident which occurred a day earlier, was not an order passed in accordance with the law, as the Superintendent of Jail or any other Authority did not hold any inquiry into the alleged incident nor was the evidence of any witness recorded in that behalf in the presence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner striaghtway on an alleged admission of the offence, which he never made.

The word `determine'' in Section 46 involves a judicial approach to the matter which necessarily implies an objective application of mind by the Superintendent of the Jail to the material before him.

Inquiries of this nature being quasijudicial, must conform to the principles of natural justice which postulate a right to the delinquent to be heard and the recording of the relevant witnesses'' evidence in the presence of the delinquent prisoner.

It also goes without saying that no punishment can be awarded to a prisoner without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge in view of Sunil Batra''s case, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1579.

Needful having admittedly not been done, impugned order of punishment is vitiated on both the counts aforesaid. Jail punishment awarded to the petitioner is, therefore, quashed.