STATE OF HARYANA versus GHASEETA RAM

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF HARYANA · 
A 
v. 
GHASEETA RAM 
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K VENKATASWAMl, JJ.I 
B 
P1isons Act, 1894/Pwzjab Jail Mamwl-Sections 52, 45, 46-Paras 608, · 
610, 627 and 633-A-Bar on Punish111ent for the sa111e offence twice-Whether · 
Jail Supe1intende11t competent to impose pu11ishment of cancel/ati.011 of remis-
sion whe11 the plisoner sent for tn"al for the same off e11ce-Held: 011ce p1isoner C 
has been sent for tlial, the jail Supelintendent divested himself of the power 
to i111pose any punish111ent-As the Prisoner was tried and convicted by 
climinal court for the same offence, the punishment imposed by Jail Super-
inte11dent could not be sustained i11 view of the bar contained in the second 
proviso to Section 52 of the Prisons Act, Para. 627 of the Jail Manual and D 
A1ticle 20(2) of the Constitution of India-High Cowt 1igluly quashed the 
punishment imposed by Jail Supelintendent-Power under para 633-A can be 
exercised only after conviction is recorded against the p1isoner and not before 
he is actually co1ivicted-Pimishment of forefeiture of remission imposed, 
much before conviction by the trial Cowt-Not sustainable-High Cowt was E 
1ight in quashing the order of the Supe1i11tendent of J ail---Constitution of India, 
1950, A1tic/e 20(2)-'--No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same 
offence more than once. 
The respondent, while undergoing life imprisonment formed an 
unlawful assembly with his co-prisoners and in execution of the common F 
object to escape from the jail, seriously injured a jail warden. After lodging 
a first information report he was sent for trial to the Sessions Court. H.e 
was convicted by the trial Court and various terms of imprisonment were 
imposed upon him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. For 
the same offence, the Superintendent of Jail, in exercise of his power under 
Section 633~A of the Punjab Jail Manual, after obtaining sanction from G 
the Inspector General of Prisons forefeited the entire remission earned by 
the prisoner and the also permanently excluded him from the system of 
earning remission. The respondent moved the High Court under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the punishment imposed by the Jail Superinten-
dent interalia on the ground that he could not be punished twice for the H 
547 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A same offence. High Court allowed his petition and quashed the order of 
the Jail Superintendent holding it to be in violation of the provisions of 
the Punjab jail Manual, the Prisons Act, 1894 and Article 20(2) of the · 
Constitution of India. The State preferred the present appeal against the 
order of the High Court. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. From an analysis of the provisions of the Prisons Act, 
1894 and Punjab Jail Manual, it follows that where the offence, which is 
both a prison offence and an offence under Indian Penal Code, or is 
C otherwise a heinous offence, and is committed by the prisoner after his 
admission to Jail, for which the Superintendent of Jail can impose punish-
ment, which in his opinion is adequate for the said offence, he may proceed 
to impose the punishment on the prisoner under the Prisons Act, and the 
Manual by following the procedure prescribed therein. But where he is of 
the opinion that adequate punishment can not be inflicted by him, as his 
D pc:.wer to award punishment in that behalf is limited by the Act or the 
Manual, he shall forward the prisoner to the competent Court having 
jurisdiction to try the offence. Where the Superintendent of Jail, has 
inflicted punishment, which in his opinion was adequate punishment for · 
the offence, then the prisoner can not also be forwarded to the Magistrate 
E for trial and be punished for the same offence twice in view of the bar 
contained in the second proviso to Section 52 of the Prisons Act and para 
627 of the Manual. [557-H, 558-A-C] 
1.2. In the instant case the Superintendent of Jail forwarded the 
prisoner together with the statement of the case after the registration of 
F FIR to the competent Magistrate to enquire into the matter in accordance 
with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Snperinten-
dent of Jail, thus, exercised the discretion vested in him under para 611 of 
the manual read with section 52 of the Act and para 627 of the Manual 
and thereby divested himself of any power to impose any punishment for 
G ·the same offence for which the p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.