Back
High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE
ANIL BASAK - Appellant
Versus
JAILER, DUM DUM CENTRAL JAIL - Respondent
Civil Rule No. 7050 (W) of 1976
Decided On : 04/02/1980
PRISONER - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - FORFEITURE OF REMISSION - JURISDICTION - Superintendent of Jail has jurisdiction to punish prisoner for prison offences but not for offences under Indian Penal Code - Inspector General of Prisons can forfeit remission for prison offences but not for offences under Indian Penal Code - Order forfeiting remission for administering poison to prisoners and jail officials quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a life convict, was punished by the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Jail for assaulting another prisoner and by the Inspector General of Prisons for conspiring to write anonymous letters against the Jail Administration, smuggling stamped envelopes into the jail, and smuggling a poisonous substance into the jail and causing it to be mixed with food served to prisoners and jail officials. The petitioner challenged the validity of these punishment orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Superintendent of the jail had jurisdiction to punish the petitioner for assaulting another prisoner, as it was a prison offence. The Inspector General of Prisons had jurisdiction to forfeit the petitioner's remission for conspiring to write anonymous letters against the Jail Administration and smuggling stamped envelopes into the jail, as these were also prison offences. However, the Inspector General of Prisons did not have jurisdiction to forfeit the petitioner's remission for smuggling a poisonous substance into the jail and causing it to be mixed with food served to prisoners and jail officials, as this was an offence under the Indian Penal Code and not a prison offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Superintendent of the jail had jurisdiction to punish the petitioner for assaulting another prisoner? 2. Whether the Inspector General of Prisons had jurisdiction to forfeit the petitioner's remission for conspiring to write anonymous letters against the Jail Administration and smuggling stamped envelopes into the jail? 3. Whether the Inspector General of Prisons had jurisdiction to forfeit the petitioner's remission for smuggling a poisonous substance into the jail and causing it to be mixed with food served to prisoners and jail officials?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Superintendent of the jail has jurisdiction to punish a prisoner for prison offences, but not for offences under the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Inspector General of Prisons can forfeit a prisoner's remission for prison offences, but not for offences under the Indian Penal Code. 3. Administering or causing to be taken any poison etc. with intent to commit offence is punishable under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is not a prison offence.
Final Decision: The order forfeiting the petitioner's remission for administering poison to prisoners and jail officials was quashed. The order forfeiting the petitioner's remission for conspiring to write anonymous letters against the Jail Administration and smuggling stamped envelopes into the jail was upheld.
( 1 ) IN a sessions trial held at Alipore, 24-Parganas the petitioner was convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. On 9th June, 1969 the Governor of West Bengal had commuted his said sentence to imprisonment for life. As a life convict, he is now undergoing detention. He is at present lodged in Alipore Central Jail. Whether he was a prisoner in Dum Dum Central Jail, the Superintendent of the said Jail by his order dated 20th March, 1975 by way of punishment had forfeited connection with an incident at Barrackpore Lock Up.
( 2 ) ON the recommendation of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal by his order dated 18th April, 1975 as a punishment, inter alia, forfeited the entire remission earned by him and also excluded him from remission system for a period of three years.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ application has challenged the validity of the aforesaid two punishment order passed against him.
( 4 ) MR. Amar Raha, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail had no jurisdiction to forfeit four days of the remission earned by the petitioner for alleged acts committed not inside the said jail but in Barrackpore Jail Lock Up. Mr. Raha has further submitted that the order of the Inspector General of Prisons was illegal and he had no jurisdiction to forfeit the entire remission earned by him so far and also debarring him from remission system for three years. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that according to Rule 706, Chapter XIX of the West Bengal Jail Code, where the Superintendent has reason to believe that a prisoner has committed offences specified in the said rules, he shall refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Raha, the substance of the charge against the petitioner was that he along with four other convict prisoners on 4. 4. 1975 had administered to the inmates of Dum Dum Central Jail and several jail officials poisonous substance with the intent to cause hurt of such persons or with the intent to commit commission of offence. Causing of such hurt by means of poison is an offence under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code which is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail himself was not competent to determine whether the petitioner was guilty of the said charge of administering 'jamal Gota" poison. He was bound to refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry. Accordingly, the order for forfeiture of the petitioner's remission for having committed the said offence was without jurisdiction.
( 5 ) THE petitioner's contention in respect of forfeiture of four days remission has little merit. The petitioner is serving out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore on 24th June, 1967. While as a convicted prisoner he was under detention at Dum Dum Central Jail, he was produced before a Magistrate of Barrackpore in connection with another criminal case against him. Presumably, the learned Magistrate before whom a charge of an offence against the petitioner was pending, had directed the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail under S. 312 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act to produce the petitioner. The Superintendent of the said Jail under S. 5 of the said Act had caused the petitioner to be taken to the Court and had caused the petitioner to be detained in custody near the court of the learned Magistrate, Barrackpore. Another prisoner, Sadhan Mukherjee, had complained to the Jail Authorities that while the petitioner was so detained, he has assaulted Sadhan Mukherjee. The petitioner, in my view, was still in charge of the Jail Authorities who had caused the petitioner to be produced in the court of the trying Magi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
