RAVI KUMAR@ BITTU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a murder case and being confined in Central Jail, Jalandhar, and while being so confined in Borstal Jail, Faridkot, he was allegedly found in possession of IS intoxicant tablets by Assistant Superintendent of the said Jail on 26-6-1983. The Assistant Superintendent, Jail, reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent who directed him to keep the petitioner in segregation ward till orders of the Jail Superintendent. The Jail Superintendent awarded punishment in the shape of 12 days' cut in the period of remissions vide his order dated 1-7-1983. Feeling aggrieved against the same, he has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India contending that the punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the Superintendent, Jail, without holding any regular enquiry or complying with the provisions of natural justice and without affording the prisoner any opportunity to defend himself. It is also maintained that the Jail punishment awarded in 1983 should not operate as an impediment after a lapse of so many years in considering the case of premature release of the petitioner.

(2.) IN the return filed by the Superintendent. District Jail, Faridkot, it is maintained that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case but he failed to explain the possession of the intoxicant tablets. It is further maintained that the petitioner confessed his guilt before the Enquiry Officer and thus was rightly convicted and sentenced under Sections 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act. A copy of proceedings of the said enquiry has also been appended as Annexure R1.

(3.) THE matter is not res integra as earlier also@ similar controversy came under the scrutiny of the Single Bench of this Court in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 (Vol. 2) CLR 129, wherein after elaborate discussion and placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Danial H. Walcott J. Prisoner at Central Prison v. Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, 1972(1) Cr. LJ 673, it was held that while holding such enquiry the Superintendent Jail, should associate the prisoner will recording the statements of the witnesses and should afford him effective opportunity to defend himself.