DANIAL H WALCOTT J PRISONER Vs. SUPERINTENDENT NAGPUR CENTRAL PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is a prisoner who is serving jail sentences awarded to him by the Presidency Magistrate's Court in Bombay as also by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. X X X X X X

(2.) THE substantial grievance which is made by the petitioner in this petition relates to the legality of the punishment of 30 day's separate confinement awarded to him by the Superintendent of the Nagpur Central Jail on 30-1-1971 in respect of prison offence. It is the case of the petitioner that two other prisoners by name Mangalgiri and Damani are kept in the barrack in which the petitioner has been kept and that the petitioner has been punished for having quarrelled without any reason with co-prisoner Madhukar Mangalgiri. The petitioner alleges that Mangalgiri was dissatisfied with his being associated with the petitioner because the petitioner was a non-vegetarian and Mangalgiri had objection to the petitioner's consumption of meat in his presence. This averment appears to be supported by the respondent's letter addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on 5-1-1971 in which he has stated that Mangalgiri has refused to take food as he did not relish the company of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 2-1-1971 Mangalgiri got up early in the morning at about 4. 00 or 4. 30 A. M. . as was usual with him, and commenced to make loud noise by spitting and blowing his nose on the wash floor where the petitioner used to bathe. The petitioner alleges that he had asked Mangalgiri to spit through the bars but Mangalgiri would not do it and asked the petitioner as to how this was possible and on this the petitioner reached towards the partition separating them and turned Mangalgiri's head towards the bars and demonstrated how he could spit out through the bars. According to the petitioner a shouting match ensued and this incident was reported in writing by the petitioner himself to the Superintendent and the Superintendent was asked to observe the order of this Court passed earlier and have the two prisoners removed. On the same day, the petitioner alleges, he was called to the Superintendent's office and was asked as to what had happened and he explained the circumstances to the Superintendent and the matter, according to the petitioner, was treated as closed. The petitioner alleges that about 3 weeks later the Superintendent appeared in the petitioner's barrack and informed him that he was being punished for the incident by awarding him 30 days' separate confinement on the charge of quarrelling with another prisoner. The positive case of the petitioner, is that except for the explanation which he had given to the Superintendent nothing further was done in the matter by the Superintendent in his presence and that the action taken against him was the result of a communication received by the Superintendent from the Inspector General of Prisons when he was informed that Mangalgiri had gone on a hunger strike. The petitioner alleges that it was Mangalgiri himself who had violated rules 17. 29 and 30 of the Discipline Rules and no Case could be made out to punish the petitioner and that the same was being done at the instigation of the Inspector General of Prisons.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 has filed a return in this petition and his case is that the petitioner had absolutely no business to manhandle the prisoner Madhukar Mangalgiri "for the customary and daily routine procedure to which the latter was accustomed and which he was observing. " According to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had taken the law in his own hands with an intention to show his supremacy and the respondent No. 1 has stated that after careful consideration and taking into account all the material and the written plea of prisoner Walcott himself it was found that he was guilty and had made himself liable for the punishment awarded to him under the Prisons Act, With regard to the averment that Mangalgiri was himself guilty of going on a hunger strike and he was allowed to go scot free the Superintendent has stated that he found that prisoner Madhukar Mangalgiri was strictly a vegetarian and gets a nausea at the sight of non-vegetarian food like pork, beef etc. which was also one of the causes for his not eating food on the day of the incident. It is further alleged that the statement of prisoner Walcott. Madhukar Mangalgiri and Damani were taken into consideration and in the interest of maintaining the discipline and jail administration he had awarded this punishment which has been duly undergone by prisoner Walcott. He denied that he was acting at the instance of Inspector-General of Prisons. Along with this return the respondent No. 1 has filed certain documents to which we shall make a reference, but one of the documents to which an immediate reference is necessary is the entry from a register maintained in the Central Jail, called a Register of Punishment, provided by Section 51 of the Prisons Act. 1894. This section reads as follows: