Bombay High Court
Niyaj Ahamad Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2011
Author: V. K. Tahilramani
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, M.L. Tahaliyani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2010
Niyaj Ahamad Abdul Jabbar
(In Jail) (Convict No. C-229),
Open Prison, Morshi,
District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its I.G. Prisons,
Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Superintendent, Central Prison,
Nagpur.
3. Superintendent, Central Prison,
Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Nitesh Samundre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.
APRIL 20, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per MRS. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 2 finally with the consent of Shri Samundre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mirza, APP for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri on account of not doing work properly and disobeying the orders of jail authorities and in addition thereto a period of 15 days has also been deducted from the accumulated remission which according to the petitioner amounts to double jeopardy.
3. The case of the petitioner is that his conduct in prison is good and he has always surrendered in time and never overstayed when he was granted parole or furlough, hence, there is no question of imposing any punishment on him. Both these contentions are denied by the Respondents. It is denied that the conduct of the petitioner is good and it is also denied that on all occasions, the petitioner surrendered in time. The affidavit filed by the respondent - State shows that it was found that the petitioner was not doing his allotted work and was irregular in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 3 his duties, hence, prison punishment was imposed on him of forfeiture of remission of 15 days. It is to be noted that this punishment was approved by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by order dated 20.10.1998. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the last over 12 years.
4. The petitioner has raised the contention that he could not have been transferred to the Special Prison without prior approval of the Sessions Court, however, we find that this contention has no legal base because for transferring a prisoner from one prison to another, prior approval of any Court is not necessary. Thus, there is no merit in this contention.
5 The record pertaining to the petitioner shows that he was in Special Prison, Ratnagiri from 05.06.1999 to 16.03.2001 and from 18.01.2001 to 16.02.2003. The affidavit filed by the learned APP states that the petitioner was transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri, from 05.06.1999 pursuant to order dated 25.05.1999 passed by the Additional Director General of Police ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 4 (Prisons), Maharashtra State, Pune. The said order was passed as the petitioner on 11.09.1998 had assaulted co-prisoners in barrack No. 5 in Nagpur Central Prison. On account of the assault by the petitioner in the jail premises, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur, imposed prison punishment of forfeiture of remission for 15 days. This punishment was approved by the District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by order dated 22.09.1998.
Thereafter again by order dated 11.01.2002, the petitioner was transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri, from 18.01.2002 to 16.02.2003 on administrative ground, as he had assaulted an under trial prisoner Rajsingh Shrivas on 02.11.2001. Rajsingh sustained injuries on account of assault by the petitioner.
Therefore, looking to the behaviour of the petitioner and in order to maintain peace and discipline in the prison, he was transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri. In our view, on account of these two transfers, no malafides can be alleged against any prison official.
6. We have already observed above that the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 5 was transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri from 05.06.1999 to 16.03.2001 and from 18.01.2001 to 16.02.2003, this petition has been preferred almost about 8 years after the last transfer. The forfeiture of remission of 15 days has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge in the year 1998 by order dated 22.09.1998 and 20.10.1998 i.e. more than twelve years ago. Both these orders have not been challenged by him. We are of the opinion that there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.
7. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a case of double punishment in the sense that apart from being transferred to Special Prison, Ratnagiri, his remission of 15 days have been deducted and thus the petitioner has been doubly punished which is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
8. Double jeopardy is a concept which would amount to violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and it is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 6 also barred under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On going through the provisions of Article 20(2), as well as Section 300, we find that the accused cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
9. In our view, so far as the constitutional provision is concerned, the prohibition is against a person being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In the present case, the prisoner was sent to Special Prison Ratnagiri on two occasions on administrative grounds i.e. in order to maintain peace and discipline in the prison as the petitioner had assaulted a co-prisoner on both occasions i.e. on 11.09.1998 and 02.11.2001. His remission of 15 days was cut for not doing work properly and disobeying order of jail authorities which was approved by the Session Court by order dated 20.10.2008. He was not transferred on this count, hence, even as per the petitioner it cannot be said to be a case of double jeopardy. No doubt in relation to assault on a co-prisoner on 11.09.1998, he was transferred to the Special Prison and his remission was cut, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 7 but the transfer cannot be termed as a punishment so also cutting of remission cannot be said to be a punishment so as to attract Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The other action taken against him is under Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, which is only a disciplinary action taken against the prisoner for which there was no prosecution launched against him nor was there any order of conviction and sentence awarded as contemplated under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
10. It would be relevant to refer to two judgments of the Apex Court in this connection.
The first case is Thomas Dana vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1959 SC 375 decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the principle of double jeopardy laid down in article 20(2) of the Constitution. It was held that the proceeding before the Sea Customs authorities under section 167 of the Sea Customs Act was not a prosecution within the meaning of Article ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 8 20(2) of the Constitution observing that "prosecution" means a proceeding either by way of indictment or information in the criminal courts in order to put an offender upon his trial. Thus, in the present case, the imposition of penalty under the Prison rules of cutting of remission would not amount to prosecution as contemplated under Article 20(2). Transfer of the petitioner to another prison stands on the same footing.
11. Another judgment of the Supreme Court on this point is in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 414. That was a case where the delinquent was found guilty and sentenced by the General Court Martial to R.I. for 6 months under Army Act. The disciplinary authorities had punished him by dismissing him from service under the rules for the said misconduct. It was held that Court Martial proceedings and disciplinary proceedings deal with different aspects i.e. one under the Army Act and another under the Service law i.e. Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules under which disciplinary action was taken and therefore, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 9 concurrent proceedings under the two i.e. Army Act and CCS (CCA) Rules would not amount to double jeopardy within the meaning of Article 20(2).
12. The Apex Court in Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay, reported in 1953 Cri. L.J. 1432, held that the words "before a Court of law or judicial tribunal" are not to be found in Article 20(2), yet in order to invoke the protection of Article 20(2), there must have been a prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence before a Court of law or tribunal, required by law to decide the matters in controversy judicially on evidence on oath which it must be authorised by law to administer. The Article contemplates proceedings of criminal nature before a Court of law in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and regulates the procedure. It was also held that Article 20(2) incorporates within its scope the plea of "autrefois convict" as known to British jurisprudence or the plea of double jeopardy as known to the American Constitution but circumscribes it by providing that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 10 there should not only be a prosecution but also a punishment in the first instance in order to operate as a bar to a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence.
13. Article 20(3) incorporates within its scope the plea of "autrefois convict" as known to the British jurisprudence or the plea of double jeopardy as known to the American Constitution, but circumscribes it by providing that there should be not only a prosecution but also a punishment in the first instance in order to operate as a bar to a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence. The accused in this case cannot get any benefit, because he has not been punished earlier. Article 20(2) would become operative in a case where the second prosecution and punishment is for the same offence for which the person concerned has already been prosecuted and punished.
14. The only condition precedent for application of the principle of double jeopardy is that the person concerned has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence. No other ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 11 ingredient could be added. The stand taken on behalf of the State by the learned A.P.P. is that both, Article 20(2) and Section 300, Cr. P.C. are not attracted in the instant case. The appellant has not been convicted or acquitted earlier for an offence based on the same facts. Thus, in view of the above, the doctrine of "double jeopardy" contained in Article 20(2) or even the bar of Section 300, Cr. P.C. could not be applied to the case of the appellant.
15. Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code also would not be attracted because it covers cases of persons convicted or acquitted earlier and states the situations whereunder, the person can be tried again. In the present case the petitioner has not been tried by a competent court for any of his misdeeds, hence, he cannot claim any benefit. This is in view of the fact that Section 300 states that such person ought to have been convicted or acquitted by a competent Court. While dealing with Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary to take note of the exceptions provided under the said sub-section as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 12 also the explanation thereunder. Sub-section (4) of Section 300 of the Code provides that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged. The explanation thereto provides that the dismissal of a complaint or the discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purposes of the said section.
16. It is, therefore, clear that to attract the provisions of Section 300(1) of the Code, it must be established that :
1.(a) A person has once been actually tried by a competent Court for same offence charged in the second trial; or
(b) Though not actually tried for the same offence charged in the second trial, the person could have been on the same facts charged with it under Sections 221(1) or convicted of it under Section 221(2).
2. The person has been convicted or acquitted in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 13 the earlier trial. Dismissal or discharge is not acquittal.
3. Conviction or acquittal is in force i.e. it has not been set aside by a superior Court.
The said Section 300 of the Code corresponds to Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1903.
17. In our view, applying the above principles laid down in cases cited above, to present case, the two actions taken against the prisoner i.e. of transferring him to Special Prison and of deducting the remission earned by him, do not amount to double jeopardy within the meaning of Article 20(2).
18. The principle which is sought to be incorporated into Section 300, Cr. P.C. is that no man should be vexed with more than one trial for offences arising out of identical acts committed by him. The rule against double jeopardy is stated in the maxim Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. It is only when the offence has been the subject of judicial adjudication and it ended in acquittal or conviction, the criminal justice system ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 14 would not allow repetition of the adjudication in a separate trial on the very same facts. Though Article 20(2) embodies protection against second trial after conviction for the same offence, its ambit is narrower than the protection afforded by Section 300, Cr. P.C.. If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of prosecution, Article 20(2) has no application.
However, Section 300 has further widened the protective wings by barring second trial against the same accused on the same facts even for different offence. However, both Article 20(2) and Section 300 do not apply in this case, as it is not a case of second trial.
19. It would also be relevant to point out that proviso to Rule 26 of Chapter XXVII of the Maharashtra Prison Manual Rules clearly lays down that any measure taken for security and safe custody of a refractory or dangerous prisoner, or for preventing him from committing mischief, and exclusion from a privilege which is otherwise admissible only to a well behaved prisoner shall not be deemed to be a punishment for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 ::: 15 purposes of the Prison Rules.
In the result, this petition is devoid of any merits and is, therefore, rejected.
20. Moreover, we have already observed that there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, we are of the opinion that on this ground alone, also this petition cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, we have examined the matter in detail and we find that the conduct of the petitioner warranted his transfer to the Special Prison, on both the occasions. The remissions of the petitioner has been forfeited after following all due procedure.
Hence, no case is made out for interference. Rule discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
*******
*GS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:14 :::