GAJANAN MOHANLAL SIKCHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having been convicted in the year 1975 was sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is undergoing the sentence in Central Prison, Nagpur. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment imposed upon him for the prison offence which he is said to have committed on 4-11-1987. It is alleged that on the said date the petitioner was found to be in possession of a currency note of Rs. 10/- during his personal search. From the averments in the petition as well as from the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the punishment awarded for committing the prison offence was forfeiture of 60 days remission which the prisoner had already earned. Besides this forfeiture of 30 days of yearly remission and 7 days of monthly remission was also inflicted upon the petitioner. The net effect of the punishment was that the petitioner lost 97 days of remission which he had already earned or would become due as per rules in force. According to the petitioner the imposition of the punishment was without issuance of a show cause notice or holding of an enquiry as envisaged by the Prisons Act or the Rules framed thereunder and therefore the punishment was liable to be quashed being contrary to law and/or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The punishment is also challenged on the ground of excessiveness and beyond the scope of the powers vested in the Superintendent of Jail. In any event, it was also urged that the punishment as imposed cannot survive for want of prior approval of the Inspector General of Prisons.

(2.) WE must observe here that no papers pertaining to the charge, enquiry or the punishment imposed came to be filed despite repeated chances given from time to time. It seems that the respondent No. 2 has no papers at all which could be filed. No doubt the Jailor has filed the counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner was brought before the Superintendent after he made necessary enquiries for passing suitable orders. After hearing the petitioner necessary orders of punishment came to be passed. It is thus apparent that no enquiry worth the name was admittedly made by the Superintendent of Jail as contemplated by the Prisons Act or the Rules in force. Can the punishment imposed in the aforesaid circumstances be upheld?

(3.) SECTION 45 of the Prisons Act enumerates the acts which are prison offences. Sub-clause (12) thereof which stipulates receiving, possessing or transferring any prohibited article is a prison offence. Section 59 authorises the State Government to make rules on various matters mentioned in that section. Clause (13) thereof permits the rules to be framed for defining articles the introduction or removal of which into or out of prisons without due authority is prohibited. Accordingly, the Maharashtra Prisons (Discipline) Rules, 1963 was framed. Under sub-rule (iv) of Rule 17, the Bank notes and cash is included in the articles prohibited in prison. Therefore, no doubt is left that currency note is a prohibited article and finding the same on the prisoner would be a prison offence.