Back
1997 Supreme(AP) 71
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE, S.S.M.QUADRI
Ramaswamy - Appellant
Versus
The Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-30-97
Headnote:
Rule 973, Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979 – Prison – Punishment - Prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment - Accordingly he was sent would complete that sentence However in view of orders of Government issued in Home (P) Department) and G. O. Department petitioner was entitled be released if as he had undergone of imprisonment after granting remission petitioner claimed that he had complied with requirements of Government Orders and sought direction to respondents release him from the prison petitioner has completed after taking into account the period of remission only nine years nine months and twenty two days as - It is also mentioned that petitioner has over-stayed when he was released on parole - For that he was punished by imposing cut of remission and he was also removed from the remission roll - punishment was imposed Prison Rules –Held, Case no such procedure has been followed - Court therefore imposing punishment of cut many days is illegal and unsustainable - Court leave it open to the Superintendent of Prisons if proposed to impose cut of remission for above said breach of condition to issue show cause notice to the petitioner in writing, calling upon him to submit his explanation within reasonable time in writing, consider same as to how much cut of remission should be imposed in light of above observations – prisoner his past conduct including violation of Conditions if any past and then impose reasonable and just punishment which should neither be too lenient nor disproportionate to gravity breach – Court would make it clear that cut remission of five days is the maximum penalty and same need not be imposed in every case - Having regard to nature of breach reason for breach explained in explanation cut can be imposed which should not any event exceed five days - It is always open to Jail Superintendent to impose cut of less than five days having regard to the above said circumstances - No mathematical precision can be demanded in such cases what all is required fair and reasonable consideration of all the facts and passing of order in writing supported by reasons order should also be communicated to the concerned prisoner - Petition allowed
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the prisoner (convict No. 9328, Central Prison, Warangal ). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Accordingly he was sent to jail on 26/09/1984. He would complete that sentence on September 25, 2004. However, in view of the orders of the Government issued in G. O. Ms. No. 3 (Home (P) Department) dated 17-1-1995 and G. O. Ms. No. 4 (Home (P) Department) dated 17-1-1995, the petitioner was entitled to be released, if as on 14/01/1995 he had undergone ten (10) years of imprisonment after granting remission. The petitioner claimed, that he had complied with the requirements of the Government Orders and sought a direction to the respondents to release him from the prison.
( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, that the petitioner has completed, after taking into account the period of remission, only nine years, nine months and twenty two days as on 14-1-1995. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has over-stayed 674 days, when he was released on parole. For that he was punished by imposing cut of remission of 1245 days and he was also removed from the remission roll. The punishment was imposed under Rule 973 of the Prison Rules.
( 4 ) RULE 973 of the Prison Rules reads as follows : 973. If a prisoner who is released on furlough/leave commits a breach of any of the conditions of furlough/leave the following punishments or any of them may, in the discretion of the Superintendent of the Prison be awarded to the Prisoner, after giving him an opportunity to show cause as regards the breach of the conditions :-1. A maximum cut of five days remission for each day of overstay. 2. Withholding the concession of either interviews or letters or both a maximum period of three months. 3. Non-inclusion of furlough/leave period towards sentence. 4. Warning. 5. Reduction from the grade of night Watchman or convict Overseer or convict Warder to convict if applicable. Provided that if a prisoner who is released on furlough/leave does not return to the prison at the time specified in that behalf he may be arrested by any Police Officer and brought back to prison to undergo the sentence.
( 5 ) FROM a plain reading of the above Rule, it is clear that if a prisoner, who is released on furlough or leave, is guilty of breach of any of the conditions of furlough/leave, the Superintendent of the Prison may award any of the following punishments after giving him an opportunity to show cause with regard to the breach of conditions. The punishments for breach of any of the conditions of furlough/leave are as follows :1. A maximum cut of five days remission, for each day of overstay. 2. Withholding the concessions of either interviews or letters or both a maximum period of three months. 3. Non-inclusion of furlough/leave period towards sentence. 4. Warning. 5. Reduction from the grade of night Watchman or convict Overseer or convict Warder to convict if applicable. The proviso entitles the police to arrest the prisoner who has committed the breach of condition of furlough and bring him back to the prison to undergo the punishment.
( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was given an oral opportunity to show cause against the breach of condition, viz. , overstay during the period of parole.
( 7 ) SMT. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the opportunity to show cause, under Rule 973 of the Prison Rules, has to be given in writing and that was not done. Sri Narender, learned counsel appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General, contends that in the jail, the practice is to give an oral opportunity and accordingly the petitioner was also
