Pala Singh vs State of Haryana and anr.

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala. Jail punishment was awarded to him by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, on March 3, 1987. The order of Superintendent, Central Jail, reads as under :

"This convict was on duty on the main wall for guarding on the night of 8/9786. On the said night, three convicts escaped by scaling the main wall by making a ladder of iron beds, but this convict could not protect the main wall and did not help to prevent the escape. The convict is heard. He doesnot plead guilty and says that he was very much vigilant while on his duty. It is not true. Had it been so, the escape by scaling the main wall could not have happened in this presence. Therefore, I punish this C.N.W. convict by demoting him permanently from C. N. W. to an ordinary prisoner for his being negligent on his duty and for not helping the administration in preventing the escape. Judicial appraisal of the punishment be taken and also get confirmation by the D.G. & I.C. prisons."

Obviously, the facts narrated in the order constitute an offence under Section 223, Indian Penal Code. The authority of the Jail Superintendent to award the punishment has been questioned by the petitioner in this petition.

In order to determine whether the jail Superintendent was authorised to award the punishment to the petitioner, it is necessary to notice paragraphs 610 and 611 of the Punjab Jail Manual which read as under :

"610. 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 221, 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3) offences punishable under sections 304A, 305, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code; and

(4) any offence triable exclusively by the court of Session."

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 enquiry into in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure."

A bare reading of the above two paragraphs of the Punjab Jail Manual would show that the superintendent Jail has been authorised to award jail punishment to prisoners except for the offences punishable under a number of sections of the Indian Penal Code incorporated in paragraphs 610 including an offence under section 223, Indian Penal Code. Clearly, the Superintendent of Jail is not himself authorised to award punishment for an offence under section 223, Indian Penal Code, and it is incumbent upon him to refer the case to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. The punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Superintendent of jail is inviolation of paragraph 610 of the Punjab Jail Manual. As such the impugned punishment is liable to be quashed.

The result is that the Jail punishment dated March 3, 1987, awarded to the petitioner in the petition is hereby quashed. It will however, be open to the Jail authorities to proceed in the matter in accordance with paragraph 610 of the Punjab Jail Manual.

JUDGMENT accordingly.