Held that possession of items in a jail raises a prison offence under the Prisons Act, 1894, not an offence under Section 414 IPC. The FIR was quashed as it disclosed no cognizable offence.
The First Information Report of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 123 of 2013 stands quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50652 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -123 Year- 2013 Thana -KOTWALI District- MUNGER ====================================================== 1. Rana @ Ranvir Yadav S/O Ramadhar Yadav Resident Of Village- Bari Govindpur, P.S.- Dharhara, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kr. Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 06-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was incarcerating in Munger Jail. In course of raid conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar in Munger Jail, certain objectionable articles were recovered from different jail wards including Cell phone (23), Cell Phone Charger (19), Pouch (82), Gutka (2), Tools for smoking Ganja, Scissors three in number, Cigarette Packet (18), Matches ( 8 packets), one knife, two sim cards etc.
From the possession of the petitioner, two Cell phones were recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the contents of the First Information Report are taken to be
2
true, no offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out which reads thus:-
“414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property.- Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation in the First Information Report that articles so seized were stolen articles. He, accordingly, submits that no offence can be said to be made out under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the contents of the First Information Report. He has submitted that at the maximum a prison offence under Section 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 can be said to be made out on the basis of the allegation as contained in the First Information Report, which is punishable under Section 46 of the said Act. He submits that the said offence is not cognizable. It is, accordingly, his contention that since no cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the allegation as contained in the First Information Report, the said First Information Report is
3
unauthorized and, therefore, needs to be quashed. Sections 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 read thus:-
45. Prison-offences .— The following acts are declared to be prison-offences when committed by a prisoner:(1) such wilful disobedience to any regulation of the prison as shall have been declared by rules made under section 59 to be a prison-offence;
(2) any assault or use of criminal force;
(3) the use of insulting or threatening
language;
(4) immoral or indecent or disorderly behaviour;
(5) wilfully disabling himself from labour;
(6) contumaciously refusing to work;
(7) filing, cutting, altering or removing handcuffs, fetters or bars without due authority;
(8) Wilful idleness or negligence at work by any prisoner sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
(9) wilful mismanagement of work by any prisoner sentenced to rigorous imprisonment;
(10) wilful damage to prison-property;
(11) tampering with or defacing historytickets, records or documents;
(12) receiving, possessing or transferring any prohibited article;
(13) feigning illness;
(14) wilfully bringing a false accusation against any officer or prisoner;
(15) omitting or refusing to report, as soon as it comes to his knowledge, the occurrence of any fire, any plot or conspiracy, any escape, attempt or preparation to escape, and any attack or preparation for attack upon any prisoner or prison-official; and
(16) conspiring to escape, or to assist in escaping, or to commit any other of the offences aforesaid.
46. Punishment of such offences .— The Superintendent may examine any person touching any such offence, and determine thereupon, and punish such offence by-
(1) a formal warning:
Explanation— A formal warning shall mean a warning personally addressed to a prisoner by the Superintendent and recorded in the punishment book and on the prisoner’s history-ticket;
(2) change of labour to some more irksome or severe form [for such period as may be prescribed by
4
rules made by the [State Government];
(3) hard labour for a period not exceeding seven days in the case of convicted criminal prisoners not sentenced to rigorous imprisonment;
(4) such loss of privileges admissible under the remission system for the time being in force as may be prescribed by rules made by the (State Government];
(5) the substitution of gunny or other coarse fabric for clothing of other material, not being woollen, for a period which shall not exceed three months;
(6) imposition of handcuffs of such pattern and weight, in such manner and for such period, as may be prescribed by rules made by the (State Government];
(7) imposition of fetters of such pattern and weight, in such manner and for such period, as may be prescribed by rules made by the[Statel Government];
(8) separate confinement for any period not exceeding (three] months;
Explanation— Separate confinement means such confinement with or without labour as secludes a prisoner from communication with, but not from sight of, other prisoners, and allows him not less than one hour’s exercise per diem and to have his meals in association with one or more other prisoners;
(9) penal diet, that is, restriction of diet in such manner and subject to such conditions regarding labour as may be prescribed by the (State Government]:
Provided that such restriction of diet shall in no case be applied to a prisoner for more than ninety-six consecutive hours, and shall not be repeated except for a fresh offence nor until after an interval of one week;
(10) cellular confinement for any period not exceeding fourteen days:
Provided that after each period of cellular confinement an interval of not less duration than such period must elapse before the prisoner is again sentenced to cellular or solitary confinement: Explanation— Cellular confinement means such confinement with or without labour as entirely secludes a prisoner from communication with, but not from sight of, other prisoners;
22[* * * * * * * * * * * * *]
23[(11)] penal diet as defined in clause (9) combined with[cellular] confinement 24[* * *];
22[(12)] whipping, provided that the number of stripes shall not exceed thirty:
Provided that nothing in this section shall render any female or civil prisoner liable to the imposition of any form of handcuffs or fetters, or to whipping.”
5
In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that on the basis of the allegation made in the First Information Report, no offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The allegations made in the First Information Report, make out offence punishable under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 which is not cognizable.
Considering the above, this application is allowed. The First Information Report of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 123 of 2013 stands quashed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
ArunKumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR alleging possession of prohibited articles by a prisoner amounts to an offence under Section 414 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rana @ Ranvir Yadav
The State Of Bihar
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
