- (1.) This appeal by Special Leave raises an interesting question about the scope of para 633-A of the Punjab Jail Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) relating to cancellation of remission earned by a prisoner. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are : While undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302/149 and 148, IPC as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and order dated 10-6-1980, the respondent is alleged to have made a plan in conspiracy with some other prisoners, to escape from the jail on 16-9-1984. In execution of the said plan, a jail warden, was allegedly assaulted by the respondent on 16-9-1984. A First Information Report was lodged and the respondent was sent up for trial for various offences under the Indian Penal Code to the Sessions Court. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and various terms of imprisonment for offences under Sections 307/149, IPC; 342/149, IPC; 332/149, IPC; 148 and 224, IPC were imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 22-2-1986, arising out of the occurrence in the jail on 16-9-84. It transpires from the record that after the FIR was lodged on 16-9-1984, the jail Superintendent, vide his order dated 17-9-1984, in exercise of his powers under para 633-A of the Manual, after obtaining sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons imposed the following punishment upon him: (i) Forfeiture of remission of 23 months 18 days earned by him; and (ii) permanently removed from the system of earning remissions.
(2.) The respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the punishment imposed by the jail Supreintendent. District Jail, Bhiwani, on 17-9-1984 on various grounds but principally on the ground that the respondent could not be punished for the same offence twice. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in the High Court, the stand taken by the respondent was that the Jail Superintendent, in exercise of the powers under para 633-A of the Manual, after obtaining sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons was competent to impose the punishment and that the imposition of such a punishment did not offend the rule of double jeopardy.
(3.) The High Court found the following facts to be admitted between the parties: "(i) That while undergoing life imprisonment in the District Jail, Bhiwani, the Petitioner formed an unlawful assembly with his co-prisoners and in execution of the common object of that assembly i.e. to escape from the jail, injured seriously a jail warden; (ii) that the petitioner along with his co-prisoners and co-accused was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, and that Court convicted him and his co-accused, and sentenced the prisoner to one year RI under Section 148, IPC, six months RI under Sections 342/149, two years RI under Sections 332/149 IPC, two years RI under Sec. 224, IPC, and seven years RI under S. 307/149, IPC, vide his judgment dated 22nd February, 1986; and (iii) that the Jail Superintendent, Bhiwani, vide his order of September 17, 1984 - Annexure P.I., forfeited his remission of 23 months and 18 days earned by him and also excluded him from remission system permanently for the same offence." After noticing some provisions of the Prisons Act and Punjab Jail Manual as well as Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the High Court came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, vide order dated 17-9-84, offended Article 20 of the Constitution, since the respondent had been, on the same allegations and for the same offence, convicted and punished by the Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal trial. Consequently the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, dated 17-9-1984, was quashed and set aside. The State has filed this appeal by special leave.;