Observing that due procedure had not been followed, the Bombay high court has quashed an order passed by superintendent of Amravati Central prison imposing punishment on a prisoner for not surrendering after the expiry of his furlough leave.
Furlough is temporary leave granted by jail authorities to a convict.
The judgement was delivered by justice AP Lavande and justice PD Kode recently on a petition filed by SK Najir, 42, who is serving a life sentence in Amravati jail on murder charge.
The petitioner, convicted in 1993, had challenged punishment imposed on him for not surrendering after the expiry of his furlough leave granted to him for two weeks on April 25, 1996. Police arrested him as he did not surrender for 585 days.
In view of late surrender the superintendent of Amravati prison issued show cause notice to the petitioner on December 27, 1997. He replied to the notice some days later.
However, on February 4, 1998, the Superintendent proposed punishment of forfeiture of remissions in the ratio of 1 : 5.
Petitioner's counsel Jaiswal submitted that if the punishment of forfeiture of remission exceeding 60 days is proposed by the Superintendent, in terms of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, he has to take prior approval of DIG Prisons for imposing punishment.
Jaiswal also submitted that it is also a settled law that appraisal of the District Judge has to be obtained only after the DIG Prisons approves the punishment. In the present case, this procedure has not been followed. On the contrary, the district judge, Amravati has first approved the punishment and thereafter the DIG Prisons has approved the punishment.
He, therefore, submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner be set aside and the matter be remanded to the authorities for fresh decision.
Prosecutor Mirza conceded that the proposed punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained.
The judges observed, "in a number of matters we have held that when the Superintendent of Central Prison proposes punishment of forfeiture of remissions exceeding 60 days, he has to first obtain prior approval of DIG Prisons and then the punishment order has to be sent for appraisal to the concerned district judge".
"Admittedly this procedure was not followed in the present case. On this count alone, the punishment imposed on the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside" the judges held and remanded the matter to the authorities for a fresh decision by April 24.
