http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GHASEETA RAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T 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:      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 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   allegedly  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 Session 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  dated 17.9.1984, in exercise of him 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.      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

the Inspector  General of  Prisons, was  competent to impose the punishment  and that the imposition of such a punishment did not offend the rule of double Jeopardy.      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 coprisoners 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 Section      332/149 IPC,  two  years  RI  under      sec. 224  IPC, and  seven years  RI      under Sec.  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  the respondent  had 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,  was quashed and set aside. The State has filed this appeal by special leave.      Mr. Prem  Malhotra, learned  counsel appearing  for the State, has  reiterated the  stand of the State Government as was reflected  the stand  of the  State  Government  as  was reflected in  the counter-affidavit  filed in the High Court and submitted  that the  High Court  could not  have, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, quashed the order of  punishment dated 17.9.1984 because that punishment had been  imposed on  the administrative  side for  a prison offence  under  para  633-A  of  the  manual  following  the conviction of  the respondent  for commission  of the prison offence on 16.9.1984, vide judgment of the trial court dated 22.2.86 and  that the said punishment did not offend Article 20 of the Constitution of India.      Mr.R.S. Sodhi,  learned counsel,  appearing  as  amicus curiae at  the request  of the  Court,  on  the  other  hand submitted  that   though  the   punishment  imposed  by  the Superintendent, District Jail, on 17.9.1984 under Para 633-A of the  Manual, even  if, strictly  speaking did  not offend

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Article  20  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  it  was  not sustainable as the necessary condition for the imposition of that punishment  under para  633-A of  the  Manual  was  not available on  17.984 since  the respondent  by that date had not been  convicted for  commission of  the  prison  offence committed on  16.9.1984. Learned  counsel further  submitted that both  under Section  52 of the Prisons Act and para 627 of the  Manual, no  person can  be  punished  for  the  same offence twice  and  the  imposition  of  punishment  by  the Superintendent of Jail was bad on that account also.      We  have   given  our   anxious  consideration  to  the respective submissions raised at the bar.      Since, the facts as found by the High Court (supra) are not in  dispute, it  would be  proper to  notice some of the relevant provisions  of the  prisons Act and the Punjab Jail Manual.      Section 45  of the prisons Act, 1894 enumerates various prison offences. It provides:           "45    Prison-offences-    The      following acts  are declared  to be      prison offences when committed by a      prisoner:-      ............................      (2) any  assault or use of criminal      force;      ............................      (16) conspiring  to escape,  or  to      assist in  escaping, or  to  commit      any   of    the   other    offences      aforesaid."      Section 46 provides that the Superintendent of the Jail may examine  any  person  touching  any  such  offence,  and determine thereupon, and punish such offence by imposing any of  the   punishments    contained  therein.  Punishment  of forfeiture of  remission for  commission of  Jail offence is provided in clause (4) which reads:      "Section  46   Punishment  of  such      offences-       ..................           (4) such  loss  of  privileges      admissible  under   the   remission      system for  the time being in force      as may  be prescribed by rules made      by the State Government.      ..............."      Section 52  of the Prisons Act deals with the procedure regarding committal of heinous offences. It reads thus:-           "procedure  on   committal  of      heinous offence. If any prisoner is      guilty  of   any  offence   against      prison-discipline which,  by reason      of his  having frequently committed      such offences  or otherwise, in the      opinion of  the Superintendent,  is      not adequately  punishable  by  the      infliction of  any punishment which      he has  power  under  this  Act  to      award,   the   Superintendent   may      forward such  prisoner to the Court      of the  District Magistrate  or  of      any Magistrate  of the  first class      (or presidency  magistrate)  having      Jurisdiction,   together   with   a      statement of the circumstances, and      such  Magistrate   shall  thereupon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    inquire into  and try the charge so      brought against  the prisoner, and,      upon conviction,  may sentence  him      to imprisonment which may extend to      one  year,   such  term  to  be  in      addition to any term for which such      prisoner       was       undergoing      imprisonment when he committed such      offence, or may sentence him to any      of the  punishments  enumerated  in      section 46:           (Provided that  any such  case      may be  transferred for inquiry and      trial by the District Magistrate to      any Magistrate  of the  first class      and   by    a   Chief    Presidency      Magistrate to  any other Presidency      Magistrate: and)           Provided also  that no  person      shall be  punished  twice  for  the      same offence."      Chapter  XIX  of  the  Punjab  Jail      Manual  deals   with  offences  and      punishments.           Para 608  inter alia  declares      the following  acts  to  be  prison      offences  when   committed   by   a      prisoner while admitted to jail:           "608.  Acts   declared  to  be      prison offences by Act IX 1894.     ...................................       (2) any assault or use of criminal      force.     ...................................      (4)   immoral    or   indecent   or      disorderly behaviour.      .................      ..................           (16) conspiring  to escape, or      to assist in escaping, or to commit      any   other    of   the    offences      aforesaid."      Para  610   deals  with   the   situation   where   the Superintendent of  jail is  obliged to refer the case to the court of  competent Magistrate  for trial  under the Code of Criminal Procedure and reads:           "610. Reference to Magistrate-      When  in   the   opinion   of   the      Superintendent any of the following      offences  are  established  against      any prisoner,  he shall  refer  the      case to  the Magistrate  exercising      jurisdiction   for    enquiry    in      accordance   with   the   Code   of      Criminal Procedure, 1898:-      (1)   offences   punishable   under      sections 147,  148 and  152 of  the      Indian Penal Code;      (2)   offences   punishable   under      sections 222,  223 and  224 of  the      Indian Penal Code;      (3)   offences   punishable   under      section 304-A,  309, 325 and 326 of      the Indian Penal Code;      (4) any offence triable exclusively

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    by the Court of Session."      Para 611 provides:      "611. Powers  of Superintendent.  -      It shall  be in  the discretion  of      the  Superintendent   to  determine      with respect to any other act which      constitutes both  a  prison-offence      and an  offence  under  the  Indian      Penal Code, whether he will use his      own powers  of punishment  or  move      the      Magistrate      exercising      jurisdiction  to  enquire  into  in      accordance   with   the   Code   of      Criminal procedure."      Punishment  for   commission  of   prison  offences  is provided for  in para  612. It  inter alia provides that the Superintendent may  punish the offence by loss of privileges admissible under  the remission system for the time being in force as may be prescribed by the rules. Para 613 deals with the loss  of  privileges  under  the  remission  system.  It provides:           613. Loss  of privileges under      the remission system.- For a prison      offence any  one of  the  following      punishments   involving   loss   of      privileges  admissible   under  the      remission system may be awarded;-           (a) Forefeiture  of  remission      earned.           (b)  Temporary  forfeiture  of      class, grade or prison privileges.           (c)  Temporary   or  permanent      exclusion   from    the   remission      system;           (d)  Temporary   or  permanent      exclusion   from    the   remission      system;      Provided that-           No   order    directing    the      forefeiture of  remission in excess      of twelve  days or the exclusion of      a  prisoner   from  the   remission      system for a period exceeding three      months shall  take  effect  without      the  previous   sanction   of   the      Inspector-General."      Para 627  deals with  the  procedure  on  committal  of heinous offences. It lays down:      "627.  Procedure   on  comittal  of      heinous offence.-  If any  prisoner      is guilty  of any  offence  against      prison-discipline which  by  reason      of his  having friquently committed      such offences  or otherwise, in the      opinion of  the Superintendent,  is      not adequately  punishable  by  the      infliction of  any punishment which      he has  power under  this  Act,  to      award,   the   Superintendent   may      forward such  prisoner to the Court      of the  District Magistrate  or  of      any Magistrate  of the  first class      having jurisdiction,  together with      a statement  of the  circumstances,      and such Magistrate shall thereupon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    inquire into  and try the charge so      brought against  the  prisoner  and      upon conviction,  may sentence  him      to imprisonment which may extend to      one  year   such  term   to  be  in      addition to any term for which such      prisoner    was     under     going      imprisonment when he committed such      offence, or may sentence him to any      of the  punishments  enumerated  in      Section 46 of the Prisons Act:      Provided that  the District Magistrate may transfer the case for  inquiry and  trial to  any Magistrate of the first class: and      Provided also  that no  person shall  be punished twice for the same offence."      para 633-A reads thus:-           "633-A. Ordinary remission not      earnable   for   certain   offences      committed after admission to jail.-      If a  prisoner is  convicted of  an      offence committed  after  admission      to jail  under sections  147,  148,      152, 224,  302,  304,  304-A,  306,      307, 308,  323, 324, 325, 326, 332,      333, 352, 353, or 377 of the Indian      Penal  Code,   or  of   an  assault      committed after  admission to  Jail      on a  warder or  other  officer  or      under section 6 of the Good Conduct      Prisoners Probational  Release Act,      1926 (x  of 1926), the remission of      whatever Kind  earned by  him under      these rules  up to  the date of the      said  conviction   may,  with   the      sanction of  the  Inspector-General      of Prisons, be cancelled."      It  is   seen  that  Section  45  of  the  Prisons  Act corresponds to para 608 of the Manual. Both these provisions declare prison  offences when  committed by  a prisoner. Any assault or  use of  criminal force as well as any conspiracy to escape from jail or to assist in escaping from jail or to commit any  other offence  have been  declared to  be prison offences. Punishment  for such  offences  under  Section  45 includes imposition  of punishment  of  loss  of  privileges admissible under  the remission system for the time being in force. para  610 of  the Manual  makes it  obligatory on the Superintendent of  Jail, when  any of the offences under the Indian  Penal   Code,  specified   in  that   paragraph  are established to have been committed by any prisoner, to refer the case  to the  Magistrate,  exercising  jurisdiction  for enquiry in  accordance with  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.      So far  as  the  commission  of  heinous  offences  are concerned, Section  52 of the prisons Act is in pari materia the same  as para  627 of the Manual. An analysis of the two provisions  shows   that  where  a  prisoner  is  guilty  of commission of any offence against prison discipline which in the opinion  of the Superintendent of Jail is not adequately punishable by  infliction of any of the punishments which he has the power under the Act or the manual to impose, he may forward the  offending prisoner to the Court of the District Magistrate or  to any  Magistrate of the First Class. having jurisdiction to  enquire into  and try the offence, together with a  statement  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

prisoner was being so forwarded for trial in accordance with law. The  Trial Court  upon  conviction,  may  sentence  the prisoner to undergo imprisonment in addition to any term for which the  prisoner was  under going  imprisonment  when  he committed such  an offence. The Trial Court may also convict and punish  the prisoner  for  committing  various  offences referred to  in para  610 of  the manual  for which  he  was charged and tried by it. para 611 of the manual leaves it to the discretion  of the  Superintendent of Jail, to determine with respect  to any  "other act"  which constitutes  both a prison offence and an offence under the Indian Penal Code, Whether he  will use his own powers of punishment or forward the  prisoner   to   a   competent   Magistrate   exercising jurisdiction to  enquire into the offence in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The exercise of powers under Section 52  of the  prisons Act  or para  627 of the manual, however, is  subject to the proviso that "no person shall be punished twice for the same offence."      From an  analysis of  the provisions of the prisons Act and the  manual (supra)  it follows  that where the offence, which is  both a  prison offence  and an  offence under  the Indian Penal Code, or is otherwise a heinous offence, and is committed by  the prisoner  after his admission to jail, for which the  Superintendent of  Jail  can  impose  punishment, which in  his opinion  is adequate  for the said offence, he may proceed  to impose  the punishment on the prisoner under the prisons  Act and  the Manual  by following the procedure prescribed therein.  But where  he is  of the  opinion  that adequate punishment cannot be inflicted by him, as his power to award  punishment in that behalf is limited by the Act or the Manual,  he shall  forward the prisoner to the competent Court having  jurisdiction to  try the  offence.  where  the Superintendent of  Jail, was  inflicted punishment, which in his opinion  was adequate  punishment for  the offence, then the prisoner  cannot also be forwarded to the Magistrate for trial and  be punished for the same offence twice in view of the bar  contained in  the 2nd  proviso to Section 52 of the prisons Act and para 627 of the manual.      In  the  instant  case,  the  Superintendent  of  Jail, appears to  have been  satisfied that  he could  not  impose adequate punishment  on the prisoner for assaulting the jail warden and  for entering  into a  conspiracy  with  his  co- prisoners to escape from jail on 16.9.84, and he, therefore, forwarded the  prisoner together,  with the statement of the case  after  the  registration  of  FIR,  to  the  competent Magistrate to enquire into the matter in accordance with the provisions  of   the  Code   of  Criminal   Procedure.   The Superintendent  of  Jail,  thus,  exercised  the  discretion vested in him under para 611 of the manual read with Section 52 of  the Act  and Para  627 of  the Manual  and thereby he divested himself  of any  power to impose any punishment for the same offence for which the prisoner was forwarded to the competent Magistrate  for trial.  The learned  Magistrate to whom the  prisoner was sent up for trial found that the case was triable  by the  Sessions Judge,  thereupon,  tried  the prisoner and  convicted and sentenced him along with the co- accused as  already noticed  vide judgment  and order  dated 22.2.1986. Since, the respondent was punished for commission of a  prison offence  by the  trial court, therefore for the same offence  by the  trial court,  therefore for  the  same offence he  could not also be punished by the Superintendent of the Jail.      The State,  however, took  the stand  before  the  High Court  and   reiterated  the   same  before   us  that   the Superintendent of Jail had not acted either under Section 52

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

of the Prisons Act or para 627 of the Manual but that he had exercised the powers under para 633-A of the Manual and that punishment under  the said  para could  be  imposed  by  the Superintendent of  Jail on the conviction of the prisoner by the competent  court and such punishment does not offend the proviso to  para 627  of the  manual or  Section 52  of  the Prisons Act,  not being  punishment for the same offence for which the respondent was convicted by the trial court.      A bare  reading of  para 633-A 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  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.      In the  instant case,  the  respondent  was  admittedly convicted and sentenced by the additional Sessions Judge for committing various  offences under  the Indian  Penal  Code, while he  was under going sentence for a previous conviction vide judgment  dated 22.2.1986.  An order of cancellation of remission under  para 633-A  of the manual could, therefore, be made  only after  22.2.1986. It  could  not  precede  his conviction. The  punishment of  forefeiture of  remission as already noticed,  was imposed  by the Superintendent of Jail on the  respondent on  17.9.1984, much before his conviction had been recorded by the trial court. This certainly was not permissible under  para 633-A  of the  manual. 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  633-A  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 manual. The High Court, therefore, committed no error in quashing  the order  of the  Superintendent of Jail dated 17.9.1984.      It follows  from the above discussion that the impugned order does not call for any interference. This appeal merits dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed.      Before parting  with this  judgment we  would, however, like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance randered by Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocate, at our request.