T.C. Donze vs Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail

N.C. Talukdar, J.—This Rule was issued on an application submitted from the jail, calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why an appropriate order or writ in the nature of mandamus, should not be issued, commanding them to perform their statutory duties as enjoined under the law, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 768A of the West Bengal Jail Code published under the authority of Section 59, Clause (5) of the Prisons Act (IX of 1894).

The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. An application was submitted by John Claude Dome, at present serving out his sentence in the Alipore Central Jail in Division I, as convicted prisoner No. 3897-A. The application was forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail, and was thereafter assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice for disposal. Upon reading the petition and on hearing the Petitioner, Who appeared in person, this Rule was issued on March 22, 1971, and made returnable on April 5, 1971. By an order passed on the same date, the State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Home Department, Writers'' Buildings, Calcutta, the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas and the Inspector-General of Prisons, Government of West Bengal, were added as parties Respondents. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent No. 3, the Inspector-General of Prisons, Government of West Bengal, along with annex. ''A'', which is a letter by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Maharastra, Poona, to the Respondent No. 3 stating, inter alia, that the prisoner shall earn remission as per the scale existing in the State of Maharastra.

Mr. Deba Prosad Choudhury, Advocate (with Mr. Sourendra Prosad Talukdar, Advocate) appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 prayed that for a proper determination of the matter, the Inspector-General of Prisons, Maharastra, may be made a party Respondent to the present Rule and by an order dated July 2, 1971, this Court directed him to be made a party as the Respondent No. 4. A copy of the Rule was also directed to be served on him. After the service was made, Mr. Sachindra Chandra Das Gupta, Senior Government Pleader, State of West Bengal, appeared and submitted that he had received an intimation that necessary instructions would be sent to him for appearing in the matter, After several adjournments the matter came up for hearing on November, 18, 1971, when Mr. Das Gupta submitted that he would make no submissions as he had ultimately received no instructions from the State of Maharastra to appear in the matter. This Court, accordingly, released him from his obligations.

Mr. Donze, who appeared in person, submitted that the Respondents were denying him an equal treatment with other prisoners as prescribed under Rule 768A of the West Bengal Jail Code offending thereby Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, of India and infringing a legal right inasmuch as the Rules of the West Bengal Jail Code are not administrative practice But got statutory sanction being authorised u/s 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894. He further prayed that the Respondents would be directed to act according to the provisions referred to above and grant the Petitioner remission as per the scale under Rule 768A, to wit, 26 days for the donation of blood made by him on January 5, 1971, being the fourth one in point of time. Mr. Deba Prosad Choudhury, Advocate (with Mr. Sourendra Prosad Talukdar, Advocate), appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 joined issue. His objections are twofold. Firstly, that the rules under the Maharastra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, would apply to the case of the Petitioner who has been convicted in Maharastra and not in the State of West Bengal; and secondly, that even if the Rules of the West Bengal Jail Code did apply, the donation of blood made by the Petitioner on January 5, 1971, is but the first such donation in the State of West Bengal, entitling the Petitioner to a remission of 20 days only under Rule 768A. An affidavit-in-opposition was used by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, annex. ''A'' whereof is the letter by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Maharashtra Poona, stating, inter alia, that the prisoner is only entitled to the remission as per the scale existing in that State inasmuch as he is undergoing the sentence awarded by a Court in Maharashtra.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and the Petitioner who appeared in person and also on going through the affidavits referred to above, I find that there is no force in the first objection raised on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, as incorporated in annex. ''A'' to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on their behalf. A reference in this context may be made to the provisions of Rule 781A of the West Bengal Jail Code. Under Sub-rule (a) it is provided that.

The benefit of remission admissible under the foregoing rules of this, chapter shall be available to a transferred prisoner. But except as otherwise provided, nothing contained in Rule 591 of the Jail Code, shall apply to such a transferred prisoner

The explanation provided for under the said section defines what is meant by a ''transferred prisoner''. It means a prisoner convicted by a Court in a State outside West Bengal, and received in a jail in West Bengal and confined there. The Petitioner fulfils this condition and comes within the ambit of the term ''transferred prisoner'', entitled under Rule 781 A(a) to the benefit of the remission, admissible under the statutory Rules framed u/s 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894. Mr. Choudhury has placed before me an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 1 of 1970. Wagle J. in the facts of the case held ultimately that the prisoner who prayed for remission, almost on similar grounds, is not entitled to the same because he was convicted outside Bombay. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the said case but I find ultimately that the facts are wholly different and it does not also appear that there is any provision like Rule 781A in �he Bombay Rules. In view of the clear and categorical provisions embodied in Rule 781A of the West Bengal Jail Code, the principles laid down in the Bombay case will not apply to the present one. Mr. Choudhury, however, in his fairness ultimately submitted that he cannot place the point higher than this because of the existence of Rule 781A of the West Bengal Jail Code and also in view of the fact that the authorities here did in fact give credit to the Applicant by a remission of 20 days on account of the donation of blood that he gave on January 5, 1971, as enjoined under Rule 768A- The point in fact arise out of the annexure attached to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. On a consideration of Rule 781A and the explanation thereunder, I hold that there is no force in the first objection taken that the West Bengal Jail Code rules do not apply to the case of the present Petitioner. The first objection taken on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 accordingly fails and I hold that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the remission available under the rules in the West Bengal Jail Code.

The second objection raised on behalf of the Respondents is that on a proper interpretation of Rule 768A of the West Bengal Jail Code, the Petitioner is entitled to a remission of 20 days only on the basis that the donation of blood given by him on January 5, 1971, is the first in point of time so far as this State is concerned: Mr. Choudhury in this context contended that the other donations that had been made outside the State of West Bengal cannot be taken into consideration'' here for the purpose of determining the total number of such donations and the consequent scale of remission. It is necessary therefore to refer to the provisions of Rule 768A which runs as follows:

A special remission of twenty days shall be awarded to prisoners who donate blood for the first time; for each subsequent donation, this remission should be two days in addition....

It is pertinent to take into consideration the note hereunder whereby no prisoner should be allowed to donate blood again before the expiry of two months from the date of last donation. It is abundantly clear that previous donations are to be taken into consideration in connection with the present one to determine whether it constitutes any bar to such donation or for determining the quantum of remission on account of the present donation. As to the test for determination of the number of time such donation was given, it cannot be overlooked that neither in Rule 768A nor in note (1) thereunder, such determination is limited to a donation made in West Bengal only. It is also relevant in this connection, for a proper interpretation of the statutory rule, to refer to Rule 591(13) wherein it has been -provided that nothing in sub-Rules (5) to (12) shall apply to a prisoner who has been convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the power of the Union extends or Jo a prisoner convicted by a Court outside West Bengal. The said provision brings to light that in the same set of rules provided for in the West Bengal Jail Code there are specific provisions barring certain benefits of remission to the prisoner when he is convicted outside the State, but in some other provisions the position is unqualified and the word used is only ''prisoner'', not circumscribed by any other qualification. It is also to be borne in mind that under the provision of Rule 781A a transferred prisoner is also entitled to the benefit of the rules under the West Bengal Jail Code as a ''prisoner'' in the State. The rules of interpretation of statute, which would also govern the interpretation of statutory rules, as the golden thread underlying both, is the same. One of the cardinal rules of such interpretation is that redundancy should be avoided. In the case of Quebec Railway Light Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry AIR 1920 P.C. 181 (186) Lord Sumner observed that--

Effect must be given if possible to all the words used, for the Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain.

It is relevant in this context to refer to the golden rule of construction of statutes. As was observed by Viscount Simon L-C, in the case of Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries (1940) A.C. 1014 (1022), that

The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.

It was further observed by the Lord Chancellor that

at the sime time, if the choice is between two interpretations the narrower of which should fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legistate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.

The same principles hold good in interpreting statutory rules also. On a consideration of the provisions of Rules 591(13) and 768A and also of 781A of the West Bengal Jail Code, I accordingly hold that in order to bring about an effective result, some meaning must be given to the body of the said provisions. In view of the specific provisions of Rule 591(13), the provisions of Rule 768A cannot be circumscribed by reading more into that rule than the rule-making body ever intended. I, accordingly, hold that in order to determine the number of times for computing the remission under Rule 768A of the West Bengal. Jail Code the prisoner concerned need not necessarily donate his blood in the State of West Bengal but that any such donation made earlier, even outside the State, is to be taken into consideration to compute the ultimate remission. Anything short of that would be long off the mark. A prisoner who has duly given his blood elsewhere in India cannot be denied the benefit that otherwise accrues to him under the rules merely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, more so when he is removed from the State where he was serving out his term, to a different State, not on his own volition but under compulsion. A denial of the benefit on such ground would be de hors the rules and offend the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Rule 768A are wide enough to rule out the circumscribed interpretation given thereto by Mr. Choudhury. The interpretation given by Mr. Choudhury would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the said statutory rules, and deny the benefits that otherwise accrues to a prisoner who donated his Mood on January 5, 1971. The jail authorities credited him with a remission of 20 days only on the footing that the said donation was for the first time within the State of West Bengal, refusing to take into consideration the other three donations made by the Petitioner ''(outside the State of West Bengal. I hold that this is an Infringement of a legal right and the same has denied justice to the Applicant. The second objection also of Mr. Choudhury accordingly fails.

In the result, the rule is made absolute; and a/ writ in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to act according to the provisions of the Prisons A & (IX of 1894) and the rules framed thereunder and grant the Petitioner remission as per the scale laid down in Rule 768A of the West Bengal Jail Code, on the basis that the donation of blood made by the Petitioner on January 5," 1971, is the fourth such donation, in order of time, subject to the conditions laid down in the said Rule.

There will be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order may be sent to the prisoner in jail.