Back
1997 Supreme(SC) 386
1997(2) Supreme 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
State of Haryana -Appellant
versus
Ghaseeta Ram -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1994
Decided on 28-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Prem Malhotra and Jasbir Malik, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Under Para 633-A of the Punjab Jail Manual, remission earned by a prisoner may be cancelled on the conviction of the prisoner, with the sanction of the Inspector General of Prisoner, but that can be done only after the conviction is recorded against the prisoner in respect of an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and committed by the prisoner after his admission to jail but not before he is actually convicted.
Headnote:(i) Punjab Jail Manual-Para 633A-Scope of-Power of cancellation of remission earned by a prisoner-Remission earned by a prisoner, may be cancelled on conviction of prisoner, with sanction of Inspector General of Prisons-That can be done only after the conviction is recorded against prisoner in respect of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code-Offence must be committed by prisoner after his admission to jail.
Held : A bare reading of para 633A of the Manual shows that remission earned by a prisoner may be cancelled on the conviction of the prisoner, with the sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons, but that can be done only after the conviction is recorded against the prisoner in respect of an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and committed by the prisoner after his admission to jail but not before he is actually convicted. Punishment under Para 633-A follows conviction and is not punishment for the commission of the offence, which led to his conviction after trial. Indeed, such a punishment does not offend second proviso to Section 52 of the Prisons Act or Para 627 of the Manual. (Para 12)
(ii) Punjab Jail Manual-Para 633A-Cancellation of remission-Respondent undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for offence u/s 302/149 and 148 IPC-He is alleged to have made a plan in conspiracy with other prisoners to escape from jail on 16-9-1984-A jail warden assaulted-He was convicted for offences u/ss 307/149, 342/149, 332/149 etc. etc. 22-2-1986-Order of cancellation of remission under para 633-A of Manual could be made only after 22-2-1986-It could not precede his conviction-Punishment of forfeiture of remission imposed on 17-9-1984, much before his conviction recorded-Not sustainable.
Held : The order of punishment dated 17.9.1984 is, thus, not sustainable on the plain language of Para 633-A of the Manual. The respondent appears to have been punished by the Superintendent Jail under Para 613 of the Manual for commission of the prison offence and not under Para 633A of the Manual. The respondent has, therefore, been punished for the same offence twice - once by the Superintendent of the Jail and the second time by the trial court on his conviction for the same offence. It could not be done in view of the bar contained in Section 52 of the Prison Act read with Para 627 of the Manaul. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Anand, J.-This appeal by Special Leave raises an interesting question about the scope of para 633-A of the Punjab Jail Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) relating to cancellation of remission earned by a prisoner. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are:
2. While undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Sections 302/149 and 148 I.P.C. as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and order dated 10.6.1980, the respondent is alleged to have made a plan in conspiracy with some other prisoners, to escape from the jail on 16.9.1984. In execution of the said plan, a jail warden, was alleged by assaulted by the respondent on 16.9.1984. A First Information Report was lodged and the respondent was sent up for trial for various offences under the Indian Penal Code to the Sessions Court. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and various terms of imprisonment for offences under Sections 307/149 I.P.C.; 342/149 I.P.C.; 332/149 I.P.C.; 148 and 224 I.P.C. were imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 22.2.1986, arising out of the occurrence in the jail on 16.9.84. It transpires from the record that after the FIR was lodged on 16.9.1984, the jail Superintendent, vide his order date 17.9.1984, in exercise of his powers under para 633-A of the Manual, after obtaining sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons imposed the following punishment upon him:
(i) Forfeiture of remission of 23 months 18 days earned by him; and
(ii) permanently removed from the system of earning remissions.
3. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the punishment imposed by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, on 17.9.1984 on various grounds but principally on the ground that the respondent could not be punished for the same offence twice. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in the High Court, the stand taken by the respondent was that the Jail Superintendent, in exercise of the powers under para 633-A of the Manual, after obtaining sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons, was competent to impose the punishment and that the imposition of such a punishment and did not offend the rule of double jeopardy.
4. The High Court found the following facts to be admitted between the parties:
"(i) That while undergoing life imprisonment in the District Jail, Bhiwani, the Petitioner formed an unlawful assembly with his co-prisoners and in execution of the common object of that assembly i.e. to escape from the jail, injured seriously a jail warden;
(ii) that the petitioner along with his co-prisoners and co-accused was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, and that Court convicted him and his co-accused, and sentenced the prisoner to one year RI under Section 148 IPC, six months RI under Sections 342/149, two years RI under Sections 332/149 IPC, two years RI under Section 224 IPC, and seven years RI under Section 307/149 IPC, vide his judgment dated 22nd February, 1986; and
(iii) that the Jail Superintendent, Bhiwani, vide his order of September 17, 1984 - Annexure P.1, forefeited his remission of 23 months and 18 days earned by him and also excluded him from remission system permanently for the same offence".
After noticing some provisions of the Prisons Act and Punjab Jail Manual as well as Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the High Court came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, vide order dated 17.9.84, offended Article 20 of the Constitution, since the respondent has been, on the same allegations and for the same offence, convicted and punished by the Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal trial. Consequently the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, dated 17.9.1984,
