BHANUPRASAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prison offence may be committed even when a prisoner is physically outside the prison. For such a prison offence he can be dealt with by the Prison authorities and if the incident is also an offence under provisions of any other law, the person concerned may also be convicted and sentenced for the offence under such ordinary law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prisoner who has been convicted for offence under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act by a competent criminal court cannot be dealt with by the Jail authorities and no punishment can be imposed upon him by the Jail authorities. The aforesaid contention is required to be decided in the background of facts that follow.

(2.) The petitioner is a prisoner. He was released on furlough commencing from Aug. 28, 1985 to Sept. 12, 1985. During this period he committed an offence under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act ('Gambling Act' for short) and was convicted and sentenced with imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay certain amount of fine. This is an admitted position. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, admitted and also proved; the Jail authorities directed that (i) the prisoner's remission of 30 days be withdrawn; (ii) an amount of Rs.100/- deposited by him as security deposit be forfeited ; and (iii) his entitlement to furlough for the year in question be also forfeited. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid threefold punishment had been imposed upon him for one and the same offence. In his submission, for the offence committed by him under the provisions of the Gambling Act he has already undergone the sentence and paid the fine imposed by the learned Magistrate; now he cannot be subjected to double jeopardy for one and the same offence.

(3.) There is basic misconception in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the petitioner committed an offence under the Gambling Act, he did not commit one offence. In fact he committed two offences, one under the Gambling Act for which he was convicted and sentenced by the court of J.M.F.C., Nadiad. At the same time he committed another offence covered by the provisions of S.48-A of the Prisons Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). S.48-A of the Act provides that failure to observe any of the conditions on which a prisoner is released on furlough shall be deemed to be a prison offence. It also provides for punishment in case of contravention of the provisions of the section.