KEEMAT SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Keemat Singh petitioner along with three other co-accused was tried for an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by Sessions Judge; Patiala, but he was held guilty for the offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00. At present he is confined in Central Jail, Patiala and he has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of punishment for the jail offence awarded to him by Superintendent, Open-air Jail, Nabha, on 28/02/1992. The petitioner contended that the allegations against him were that he was roaming in the jail after taking some intoxicating pills and he was not found at the place fixed for him. He was awarded punishment for this offence and his two months earned remissions were forfeited. He further alleged that before awarding punishment to him no enquiry was conducted as envisaged under Section 46 of the Prisons Act. No person was examined in his presence nor he was allowed to cross-examine any witness. Enquiry, if any, conducted by the Superintendent Jail, was conducted by him, sitting in his office. His case was not sent to the Sessions Judge concerned for judicial appraisal nor any speaking order was passed by the Sessions Judge for approving the punishment. He was never summoned by the Sessions Judge nor he was heard. The punishment was, therefore, arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) In the return filed by the respondents this fact was admitted that the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment for seven years. It was maintained that while undergoing sentence in open Jail, Nabha, he was allotted labour at Tubewell No. 1, but on the night of 28/02/1992 he was caught by Wardar Gurdip Singh while roaming at Tubewell No. 3 under the influence of liquor. He was informed about the offence that he committed and punishment awarded to him by the Superintendent Entry was also made on his history ticket. Before the punishment was awarded statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner himself in his statement admitted that he had taken liquor from the villager.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.