SANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, Sant Singh prisoner seeks quashment of the order dated 6.4.1989 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala awarding some punishment to the petitioner under Sections 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894, for two days overstaying the period of parole, inter-alia, on the ground that procedure laid down under Section .46 of the Prisons Act was not followed as no-effective opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself. It is also averred that judicial appraisal of The concerned Sessions Judge was not obtained before or after awarding the sentence.

(2.) IN the return, it is stated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala that due procedure was followed before awarding the punishment and that the concurrence of the concerned Sessions Judge was obtained.

(3.) FROM the above-referred order of the Sessions Judge, there is not even an oblique indication, that he has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before according approval what to say of having heard the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge had accorded approval to the punishment awarded after due application of mind. The decision of this Court in Surat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 679 can be safely referred in this behalf. In that case also, the order awarding punishment was quashed on the ground that the Sessions Judge has not passed a speaking order while giving approval to the punishment awarded to the prisoner. In the case in hand also, the learned Session Judge has failed to pass a speaking order after full application of the mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of the Sessions Judge meets the requirements of the mandate of the Apex Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC. 1579.