HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are hardly in dispute. The Petitioner Harnek Singh was found guilty under section 304, Indian Penal rode, and was sentenced to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment which he is undergoing in Central Jai, Patiala. During the course of his confinement, he applied for temporary release on furlough for three weeks under section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. It is stated that the application for the grant of furlough was forwarded by the Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala to the Inspector General of Prisons Punjab, who granted the furlough to the petitioner. According to the information of the petitioner, the order granting furlough to him was communicated by the Inspector General of Prisons to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. It, however, transpires that on December 19, 1982, the petitioner was found to be under the influence of some intoxicating tablets and the Superintendent of Jail ordered on December 20, 1982 a cut of four days in the earned remission and also imposed bar-fetters for one month. In addition, the petitioner was denied the facility of release on furlough. The present petition has been filed in consequence of the aforesaid order of the Superintendent of jail.

(2.) THE main and, in fact, the only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Jail on December 20, 1982 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 penality was imposed upon the petitioner straightaway on an alleged admission of the offence, which he never made. In fact, it is also stated that the copy of the order passed on December 20, 1982 was never supplied to the petitioner and he was able to make a note of the same only from the extract noted on the History Ticket of the petitioner maintained by the Jail Authorities, The said extract has been reproduced in Para 6 of the petition.

(3.) IN so far as the factual aspect of the rival stands taken up by the parties is concerned, I am constrained to find that the learned Inspector General of prisons seems to have made an averment in Para 9 of the reply which is not supported by the record of the Jail Authorities. The proceedings record in the History Ticket of the petitioner merely indicate that the two officials mentioned above put up their separate notes in regard to the incident which took place on December 19, 1982 and the case was then put up before the Deputy Superintendent who passed on the same for orders of the Superintendent of Jail. The last mentioned officer passed the order on December 20, 1982 in which it is observed that the convict had admitted his offence and, had said nothing in defence. After these observation, the Superintendent of Jail proceeded to impose the penalty of four days cut in the earned remission and imposition of bar fetters for one month. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's prayer for grant furlough has also been denied on account of the above-mentioned punishment. There is absolutely no indication on the record that any statements of the two officials, namely Shri Balbir Singh, Batra, Assistant Superintendent, and Shri B. L. Sethi, Pharmacist were recorded by some Officer in the presence of the petitioner, or that the petitioner had refused to cross-examine these witnesses. The learned counsel for the State is also unable to point out any material on the record which would support the averment to this effect made in Para 9 of the written reply. Indeed, it would be desirable for a deponent to check up the correctness or otherwise of the facts mentioned in an affidavit which is to be submitted to a court of law.