JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri V.G. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Bhapkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner herein challenges punishment inflicted on him for the overstay when he was released on parole. The petitioner was undergoing sentence awarded to him for an offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was kept in Nanded District Prison. It is alleged that initially a parole of two months was granted to him which was extended. However, the petitioner overstayed for a period of two years beyond the time extended also. It is alleged that the petitioner overstayed for a period of 697 days and, therefore, he was removed from remission system for a period of 3 years and an entry thereof was to be taken in the remission register. This order of punishment was later sent to the learned District Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by Reference No. JL/I/4829/86 on 30th June, 1986, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to observe that the punishment inflicted on the prisoner is commensurate with the gravity of the act complained of, and therefore, no interference is called for. Though the petitioner could not file a copy of the impugned order, the said copy was made available to us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. If a prisoner overstays a parole or furlough, the mischief is a prison offence by virtue of the provisions of section 48-A inserted by the Maharashtra Amendment in Prisons Act, 1894. Section 48-A is quoted below for the ready reference :---

"If any prisoner fails without sufficient cause to observe any of the conditions on which his sentence was suspended or remitted or furlough or release on parole; was granted to him, he shall be deemed to have committed a prison offence and the Superintendent may, after obtaining his explanation, punish such offence by

(1) a formal warning as provided in Clause (1) of section 46;

(2) reduction in grade if such prisoner has been appointed an officer of prison

(3) loss of privileges admissible under the remission or furlough or parole system; or

(4) loss of such other privileges as the State Government may by general or special order, direct."

It is clear that any punishment to be inflicted under section 48-A for overstay of the parole, will have to be awarded after obtaining the explanation of the prisoner alleged to have committed such offence. We do not find that any such opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to furnish his say and Shri Bhapkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions of the jail officials present in the Court, was fair enough to admit that no such explanation was obtained from the petitioner. Inquiry into the prison offences is of a quasi judicial nature and hence, they will have to follow the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, there is no question of inferring the requirement of following the principles of natural justice. The statute has, in clear terms, laid down that after obtaining the explanation of the prisoner, punishment can be awarded. Whether the punishment proposed to be imposed is a minor one or a major one as classified under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Prisoners (Punishment) Rules, 1963, the requirement of seeking explanation from the prisoner is obligatory in all cases. Section 48-A itself has provided what punishment can be awarded and for inflicting any of these punishments, explanation will have to be obtained from the prisoner about his alleged misdeed.

4. Shri Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in (Danial H. Walcott v. Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison)1, 1972 Cri.L.J. 673. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that inquiry in prison offence "is of quasi-judicial nature, must be made according to the principles of natural justice. The right to be heard is an essential characteristic of natural justice." Assuming that no special procedu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document