SURINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 22.8.1984. He was confined in Central Jail, Hissar. On 12.2.1992 at about 11.30 A.M. the workshop in the jail was inspected by Superintendent District Jail, who found the petitioner at the main gate of the workshop while his history ticket showed that he was to perform his labour work in factory godown. At that time the petitioner was also not wearing the clothes provided to him by the Jail Authorities but he was wearing shirt and trousers of white colour. The Head Warder Inderjit Singh and Warder Phool singh were asked to search his person. Then he immediately took out something from his pocket and consumed the same. He was suspected to have consumed opium as he was a smuggler of opium. On his personal search he was found to have wrist watch of Ricco made which was taken from him. He was thus found guilty of jail offence under Para 613 of the Punjab Jail Manual and was awarded punishment i.e. withdrawn of 12 days earned remissions. The punishment was duly appraised by the learned Sessions Judge Rohtak on 17.3.1992. The petitioner alleged that the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak held him guilty of jail offence without making any enquiry as is envisaged under the provisions of Section 46 of the Imprisonment Act, 1984 and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. In fact he never committed any offence. The order awarding punishment was wrong, illegal and improper. He has thus filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned jail punishment dated 13.2.1992.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondent, it was alleged that the petitioner was at main gate of jail workshop at the time of inspection by the Superintendent of Jail while his labour was in godown of the factory. He was in private clothings i.e. shirt and pyjama, and was also found wearing one valuable Ricco wrist watch on his left wrist which were prohibited under Para 606(5) of the Punjab Jail Mannual. This offence was committed by the petitioner in the presence of Superintendent Jail and he was punished under Rules. He was summoned by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 17.3.1992 for his personal hearing in connection with approval and judicial appraisal of the punishment awarded to him and the punishment was duly appraised.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case before awarding punishment to the petitioner no enquiry was conducted, no witness was examined not the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of being heard. The impugned order Annexure P-1 disclosed that the petitioner was not associated with any process of enquiry and the jail punishment was liable to be quashed on this ground. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Devinder Paul Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1991(1) RCR 183 wherein it was held that punishment could be awarded by Superintendent of Jail after examining witnesses and affording opportunity to the delinquent prisoner to cross-examine the witnesses with further opportunity to lead evidence in defence. Before punishment is awarded the Superintendent Jail has to determine as to whether a convict had committed any jail offence. The work 'determine' means 'to come to a decision'. It implies that the punishing authority has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and reach a conclusion. The statement of the witnesses conversant with the facts had to be recorded in the presence of the convict. Thereafter he had to be given an opportunity of being heard so that he may refute the allegations made against him.