AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 42 dated 18.2.2012, u/s 353, 186, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) read with Section 42 of Prisons Act, 1894 (''Act'' for short), registered at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was undergoing life sentence in FIR No. 120 dated 31.8.1999 u/s 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bagha Purana and 10 years sentence in FIR No. 108 dated 28.8.1996 u/s 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Moga. Petitioner was found in possession of a mobile phone. In this regard, Superintendent, Modern Central Reformation House ordered that the petitioner be kept separately from other convicts in a separate barrack under lock for 30 days. The said letter dated 13.2.2012 submitted by the Superintendent was approved by the Sessions Judge. Hence, with regard to same offence FIR in question could not have been registered against the petitioner.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had misbehaved with the officials and was found in possession of a mobile phone while undergoing his sentence in jail. Hence, the criminal proceedings in question initiated against the petitioner were liable to continue.
The facts of the present case are not in dispute. Petitioner was undergoing life sentence in FIR No. 120 dated 31.8.1999 u/s 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Baghapurana and 10 years sentence in FIR No. 108 dated 28.8.1996 u/s 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Moga. On 11.2.2012, petitioner was searched and was found in possession of a mobile phone. At that time, petitioner had allegedly misbehaved with the jail employees. Superintendent, Modern Central Reformation House vide letter dated 13.2.2012 held that the petitioner had violated para Nos. 543(3) and 544 (3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 38) of Jail Manual and the orders passed by the State and Director General of Police, Jails Punjab. Hence, the accused was proposed to be kept in a separate barrack for 30 days from other prisoners. The approval was granted by the Sessions Judge qua the same vide order dated 15.9.2012 (Annexure R-1).
Para 546 of the Punjab Jail Manual reads as under:-
Powers of Superintendent-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 enquire into it in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As per the above provision, any act which constitutes both prison offence and an offence under the Indian Penal Code the Superintendent shall determine as to whether he wants to himself proceed qua the said act and punish the offender or move the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction to enquire into the matter.
Section 52 of the Act reads as under:-
Procedure on committal of heinous offence-
If any prisoner is guilty of any offence against prison-discipline which be reason of his having frequently committed such offences or otherwise, in the opinion of the Superintendent, is not adequately punishable by the infliction of any punishment which he has power under this Act to award, the Superintendent may forward such prisoner to the Court of the District Magistrate or of any Magistrate of the first class [or Presidency Magistrate] having jurisdiction, together with a statement of the circumstances, and such Magistrate shall thereupon inquire into and try the charge so brought against the prisoner, and, upon conviction, may sentence him to imprisonment which may extend to on year, such term to be in addition to any term for which such prisoner was undergoing imprisonment when he committed such offence or may sentence him to any of the punishments enumerated in section 46:
[Provided that any such case may be transferred for inquiry and trial by the District Magistrate to any Magistrate of the first class and by a Chief Presidency Magistrate to any other Presidency Magistrate: and]
Provided also that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.
Thus, as per the above provision, no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.
In the present case, the Superintendent himself proceeded to deal with the matter and ordered the punishment of the petitioner that he be kept in a separate barrack from other prisoners for 30 days. The said action of the Superintendent Jail was approved by the Sessions Judge.
In these circumstances, since the petitioner had already been punished by the Superintendent Jail, he could not be sought to be punished again for an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 42 dated 18.2.2012, u/s 353, 186, 420 IPC read with Section 42 of the Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.