Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) reduction in grade if such prisoner has been appointed an officer of prison;
(3) loss of privileges admissible under the remission or furlough or parole system; or (4) loss of such other privileges as the State Government may by a general or special order direct".

7. Another relevant provision of the Prisons Act is Section 11 which provides that subject to the order of the Inspector General, the Superintendent shall manage the prison in all matters relating to discipline, labour, expenditure, punishment and control.

9. We may indicate that pursuant to the powers vested in it by Section 59(2), the State Government has classified the offences into 'major' and 'minor' offences. By a notification issued by the Home Department on 26th September 1963, the State Government has framed Rules which are called "The Maharashtra Prison (Punishment) Rules, 1963". We may also indicate that in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, the then Government of Bombay has framed the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Then there are also Rules called 'the Maharashtra prison (Remission System) Rules, 1962.' Under both these systems, viz., the furlough and parole systems on the one hand and the remission system on the other hand, certain benefits are conferred upon the prisoner for certain acts of good conduct or abstenance from bad conduct. These Rules also provide for the suspension of the benefit if such acts of mis-conduct are committed by the inmate of the prison. Rule 23 of the remission system Rules provides that the Superintendent may punish any prison offence under section 46 of the Prisons Act either by forfeiting any ordinary or special remission for a period not exceeding 60 days or by removing any prisoner from the remission system for a period not exceeding one year. In a case where the Superintendent is of the opinion that higher punishment by way of forfeiture or remission or removal from the remision system is warranted, then he may impose such higher punishment but with the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Prison.

13. In the aforesaid case, the bench came to the conclusion that the prison authorities imposed the punishment for over-staying beyond the period of parole, without observing principles of natural justice and without obtaining the previous approval of the Inspector General of Prison. The Bench, therefore, rightly quashed the sentence imposed by the jail authorities. However, the observations made by the Bench in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said decision quoted above, are clearly obiter. So far as the breaches of conditions for suspension of sentence of parole or furlough, they are declared as prison offence under section 48 A. In case of any such breach, the Superintendent is empowered to punish such offence by imposing various punishments mentioned in the said Section. One of the punishments is loss of privilege admissible under the remission of furlough or parole system. The State Government has framed Rules under section 11(1) by a notification dated 2nd July 1964. We have seen that Clause (a) of Rule 2 of the said Rules provides a maximum cut of 5 days' remission for each day of over-stay. The discretion conferred upon the Superintendent is not arbitrary and unguided as contended by Mr. Gawankar. The Superintendent is required to follow principles of natural justice before imposing the punishment. He is also obliged to state reasons for the imposition of the punishment. If the punishment is forfeiture of ordinary or special remission for more than 60 days or for removing the prisoner from the remission system for a period exceeding one year, Previous approval of the - Inspector General is necessary. We do not find any arbitrariness in the scheme laid down by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed by the State Government. It is therefore not possible for us to accept the submission of Mr. Gawankar that the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner for overstay of 449 days after the parole period was illegal or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.