which drew a verdict in Kulwant @ Monu ’s case (supra). The said statutory provision is prima facie but in derogation of the right of an accused-prisoner to claim an effective, and, fair trial, thus in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, before the jurisdictionally competent Court of Law. However, the non obstante clause(s), as carried in the Act repealed of 1988, when but does authorize the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, to impose punishments, and, though there appears to be some safeguard against any errors seeping into the said awarding of punishment by the Jail Superintendent concerned, through the said punishment becoming judicially appraised by the District and Sessions Judge concerned. However, the constitutional principle of fair trial, when requires that the fullest opportunity becomes afforded to the accused, to engage a defence counsel, for crossexamining the prosecution witnesses, and, also his being permitted to adduce defence evidence, when appears to be yet put in the back-burner, through the above mandate(s) enclosed in the said non-obstante clause. Consequently, the said whittling down or the truncations of the constitutional principle of fair trial, despite prima facie requiring adherences theretos being made, whereas, the judgment made by the Division Bench of this Court in Vakil Raj’s case (supra), and, the judgment made by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwant @ Monu ’s case (supra), to the considered mind of this Court, prima facie not undertaking in their respective considered minds, thus the exercises of evaluating the processes relating to meteing or awarding of punishments to the prisoner concerned, by the jail Superintendent, inasmuch as, qua the fairness of trial as entered into by the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, in respect of the relevant jail offence, thus being in alignment with the principles of fair trial, as are required to be adopted by the Criminal
