Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sheikh Said Sheikh Najir, a convict lodged in Central Prison, Amravati, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order dated 4th February 1998 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati (Respondent No.2). The petitioner had availed furlough leave but reported late by 585 days. For this jail offence, the Superintendent imposed a punishment of forfeiture of remission at the rate of five days for each day's delay. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No.674 of 2009, arguing that the forfeiture of remission was for more than sixty days' duration, and under the existing rules, the Superintendent was required to obtain prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Respondent No.1) before imposing such a punishment. The respondents did not dispute that the forfeiture exceeded 60 days and that no prior approval was obtained. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the order of forfeiture of remission for more than 60 days without prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons was invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 4th February 1998, and directed the respondents to restore the forfeited remission to the petitioner's account. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Forfeiture of Remission - Prior Approval Requirement - Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and Bombay Jail Manual - The Superintendent of Prison imposed forfeiture of remission at the rate of five days for each day's delay for a total of 585 days delay in reporting back after furlough leave. The forfeiture exceeded 60 days, but the Superintendent did not obtain prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as required under the existing rules. Held that the order of forfeiture of remission for more than 60 days without prior approval is invalid and cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-5)
B) Prison Law - Furlough Leave - Overstay - Jail Offence - The petitioner reported late by 585 days after availing furlough leave. The Superintendent punished him for jail offence by forfeiture of remission at the rate of five days for each day's delay. The challenge was on the ground that the remission forfeited was for more than sixty days' duration, and the Superintendent failed to take prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. Held that the punishment order is set aside. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of forfeiture of remission passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati, for a period exceeding 60 days without prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons is valid.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 4th February 1998 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati, and directed the respondents to restore the forfeited remission to the petitioner's account. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Prison discipline
- forfeiture of remission
- furlough leave
- prior approval requirement
- remission exceeding 60 days
- jail offence
- Bombay Jail Manual
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 139
Criminal Writ Petition No.378 of 2010
S.A. Jaiswal, Rupesh A. Jaiswal (for petitioner), B.P. Maldhure (Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents)
The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur and The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of forfeiture of remission passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 4th February 1998 forfeiting his remission and restoration of the forfeited remission.
Filing Reason
The petitioner reported late by 585 days after availing furlough leave, and the Superintendent punished him by forfeiting remission at the rate of five days for each day's delay without obtaining prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, which was required as the forfeiture exceeded 60 days.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.674 of 2009 challenging the same order, which was disposed of, and the present petition was filed subsequently.
Issues
Whether the order of forfeiture of remission for more than 60 days without prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the forfeiture of remission was for more than 60 days, and under the existing rules, the Superintendent was required to obtain prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, which was not done.
The respondents did not dispute the fact that the forfeiture exceeded 60 days and that no prior approval was obtained.
Ratio Decidendi
The Superintendent of Prison cannot forfeit remission for more than 60 days without obtaining prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as per the existing rules. Any such order passed without prior approval is invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner reported late by 585 days after availing furlough leave.
By order dated 4th February, 1998, the Respondent No.2 had punished him for jail offence by forfeiture of remission at the rate of five days for each day's delay.
The challenge in Writ Petition No.674 of 2009 was raised on the ground that the remission was for more than sixty days' duration, however, the Respondent No.2, who was required under existing rules to take prior approval from Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, had failed to do so.
In the present petition, the respondents have not disputed the fact that the forfeiture of remission was for more than 60 days and that no prior approval was obtained.
In the circumstances, the order of forfeiture of remission for more than 60 days without prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons cannot be sustained.
Procedural History
The petitioner was punished by order dated 4th February 1998 by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati, for reporting late by 585 days after furlough leave. He challenged this order in Writ Petition No.674 of 2009. Subsequently, he filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No.378 of 2010, which was heard and finally disposed of on 27th September 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Prisons Act, 1894: Section 59
