MUKESH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS, KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mukesh petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years by Additional Sessions Judge Karnal. During his confinement in jail he was convicted for a jail offence on 16.11.90 on the allegations that on 22.11.90 he was seen taking some money from another prisoner Satish Kumar son of Khan Chand in order to hide the same. Kashi Ram Warder who saw the petitioner taking money took him on the backside of Barrack No. I and effected his search. He recovered Rs. 427/ - from the possession of the petitioner and produced him before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jail. The petitioner was stated to have confessed his guilt so he was punished under para 613(A) of the Punjab Jail Manual and his eight days earned remission was forfeited. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the jail punishment awarded to him.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that he never confessed of any offence before Deputy Superintendent of Jail and punishment was awarded to him without following any procedure established by law. No witness was examined in his presence nor any opportunity was afforded to him to cross -examine the Witness. There was also no proper judicial appraisal by the Sessions Judge of the punishment awarded to him. The order passed by the Sessions Judge, was not a speaking order and the Sessions Judge had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) BHARAT Singh Superintendent District Jail Karnal, filed a reply to the petition wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was produced before the Superintendent Jail where he was heard and was given full opportunity to defend his case. He admitted his guilt and he was found guilty according to Punjab Jail Manual Para 606(5) and was punished under Para 613(9). The punishment was judicially appraised by the Sessions Judge karnal vide his letter dated 28.11.90. it was further maintained that when the petitioner admitted his guilt there was no necessity to produce evidence.