2014 Supreme(Mad) 3034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. RAJESWARAN AND P.N. PRAKASH, JJ.
Kanchana - Petitioner
Versus
The State & Anr. - Respondents
HCP.No.574/2013 and M.P.No.1/2013
Decided on: 08.09.2014
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents: Mr.P.Govindarajan, A.P.P.
The main legal point established is the authority of the Superintendent to conduct inquiries and impose penalties for prison offences in accordance with the Prison Rules and relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - Prison Rules and Legal Provisions - Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894; Section 45 of the Prisons Act; Rule 297, 298, 302, 304 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules - The court discussed the relevant legal provisions under the Prisons Act and Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, including defining prison offences, prohibited articles, and the power to impose punishments. The court emphasized the authority of the Superintendent to conduct inquiries and impose penalties for prison offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an enquiry into the allegation that her son, a life convict, was falsely accused of possessing Ganja in prison. The Superintendent imposed a penalty of denying him interview for three months. The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction for an enquiry under the Prison Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Superintendent's actions were in accordance with the Prison Rules and legal provisions. It held that the Superintendent had the authority to conduct an enquiry and impose penalties for prison offences.
Issues: The issues involved the imposition of penalties by the Superintendent and the initiation of criminal prosecution against a prisoner, raising concerns of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the authority of the Superintendent to impose penalties for prison offences and highlighted the distinction between prison offences and IPC offences. It emphasized the discretion given to the Superintendent to refer cases to the Magistrate for enquiry.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
The petitioner in this HCP is one Kanchana, whose son Vijayan is a life convict, CT No.1547, and who is serving sentence of life imprisonment in the Central Prison, Puzhal-I.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the jail authorities foisted a case on her son as if he was in possession of Ganja, and without any enquiry imposed punishment of denial of interview for three months. She sent a representation dated 28.03.2013 to jail authorities, in which she has sought for an enquiry into the allegation. As there was no response to her representation, she has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, praying for a direction to the authorities to hold an enquiry under the Prison Rules and pass appropriate orders.
3. On notice to the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed by Thiru S.Parameswaran, the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. In his counter affidavit he has stated as follows:
"3. I humbly submit that the content made by the petitioner is false. The Life Convict Prisoner-1547, Viji @ Vijayan was involved in illegal activities in Central Prison - 1, Puzhal based on information on 04.03.2013 at 22.00 P.M. in Associate Block - I, 15th dormentry cell the search was conducted by the special searching team prison wardens. In that search the contraband Item Ganja measure about 100 gm was seized from a bag own by the petitioners son/Life Convict Prisoner.
4. I humbly submit that the same was recorded in the Jailor Report book no.16 Page 299 by then Jailor and enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent and the extract of the Jailor report book as follows:-
“TAMIL”
5. I humbly submit that based on the Jailor report book a complaint was given at M3 Puzhal Police Station as per Rule and the same was registered in Cr.No.421/13, u/s 20(b) of NDPS Act read with 42 of Prison Act. Now this case was pending before the Hon'ble JM-Tiruvottiyur Court, Chennai and the convict Prisoner got bail on this case on 25.05.2013."
We also summoned the records from the prison and found the entries in the Jailor Report Book No.16, which has been extracted in the affidavit.
4. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following two Judgments in support of his prayer:
(i) State of Haryana vs. Ghaseeta Ram [(1997) 3 SCC 766]
(ii) S.Nalini vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2013 (4) MLJ (Crl) 354]
5. To appreciate the contentions of Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, it may be relevant to extract certain provisions of law touching upon this subject. Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 empowers the State Government to frame Rules consistent with the Act touching upon several subjects and we are now concerned with only 4 aspects in this case.
[a] “59. Power to make rules.” [The State Government may] make rules consistent with this Act”
(1) defining the act which shall constitute prison-offences;
(2) determining the classification of prison-offences into serious and minor offences;
(3) fixing the punishments admissible under this Act which shall be awardable for commission of prison-offences or classes thereof;
(4) declaring the circumstances in which acts constituting both a prison-offence and an offence under the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) may or may not be dealt with as a prison-offence;
[b] The relevant portion of Section 45 of the Prisons Act is as under:
"45. Prison-offences.” The following acts are declared to be prison-offences when committed by a prisoner:-
(1) such wilful disobedience to any regulation of the prison as shall have been declared by rules made under section 59 to be a prison-offence;
(2) any assault or use of criminal force;
(3) the use of insulting or threatening language;
(4) ......
(5) .....
(6) ......
(7) ......
(8) ......
(9) .......
(10) .......
(11) .......
(12) receiving, possessing or transferring any prohibited article;"
[c] In exercise of powers conferred by Section 59 of the Prisons Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu has framed the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 and by vi