SURAJ GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all th fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. A compulsion under the authority of law, following upon a conviction, to live in a prison-house entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or the right to "practise" a profession. A man of profession would thus stand stripped of his right to hold consultations while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the exercise of which incarceration can be no impediment, likewise, even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

(2.) Petitioner herein is a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Bilaspur for commission of offences under Sections 302, 307 and 149 of IPC. By way of this writ petition, he has called in question forfeiture of 10 days of his earned remission by order dated 22/04/2020 passed by the Jail Superintendent finding him guilty of committing prison offence under Section 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894. It has been questioned on the ground that such a forfeiture of his earned remission, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. R.R. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that remission forfeited by the Jail Superintendent on account of prohibited article found in possession of the petitioner, which is a prison offence under Section 45(12) of the Prisons Act, 1894, is absolutely unjust and improper and is in violation of petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as no enquiry was conducted by the Jail Superintendent as contemplated in Rule 734 of Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 nor the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in that enquiry, as such, the impugned order passed by the Jail Superintendent deserves to be set aside.