Jail Punishment Imposed Subsequent To Recommendation To Shift Prisoner To Open Air Camp Not Relevant: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday directed the State to transfer a prisoner to Open Air Camp, pursuant to the decision of Recommendation Committee for such transfer, which was allegedly not implemented on the ground that the prisoner was punished with jail punishment for 2 years preceding his recommendation by the Committee.It is to be noted that Rule 3(g) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open...
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday directed the State to transfer a prisoner to Open Air Camp, pursuant to the decision of Recommendation Committee for such transfer, which was allegedly not implemented on the ground that the prisoner was punished with jail punishment for 2 years preceding his recommendation by the Committee.
It is to be noted that Rule 3(g) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (the Rules, 1972) provides as follows:
“3. Ineligibility for admission to open air camp: - The following classes of prisoners shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp:-
…………..
(g) Prisoners whose conduct in the jail is not good provided that a prisoner who would have not received any jail punishment for two years preceding the date of the recommendations of his name for admission to the Open Camp may be considered eligible.”
The Recommendation Committee decided to send the petitioner-prisoner to Open Air Camp vide its decision made in meeting dated April 25, 2022.
However, the said decision of the committee was not implemented on the ground that petitioner-prisoner was inflicted with jail punishment as mentioned in Rule 3(g) of the Rules, 1972 as on August 24, 2020, May 18, 2022 and December 4, 2022 and therefore he was not sent to Open Air Camp.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner-prisoner submitted that non-transfer of petitioner to the open air camp was not justified as on the date of passing of the order of the committee dated April 25, 2022, the petitioner had not been visited with any jail punishment within two years as provided in Rule 3(g) of the Rules, 1972, and taking into consideration of the subsequent jail punishments imposed on May 18, 2022 and December 4, 2022 were not justified.
The court noted:
“A perusal of the punishment dated 24.8.2020 would reveal that the petitioner was only given a formal warning and subsequently on 18.5.2022 & on 4.12.2022, he was accorded jail punishment. The provisions of the Rule 3(g), quoted hereinbefore, are clear which provides that, in case, jail punishment has been received, the prisoner would not be eligible.”
The court held that the giving of a formal warning cannot be equated with jail punishment and, therefore, the formal warning given to the petitioner on August 24, 2020 cannot come in his way of being sent to Open Air Camp.
With regard to the subsequent jail punishments imposed on the petitioner-prisoner on May 18, 2022 and December 4, 2022, the court held:
“Insofar as, the jail punishment dated 18.5.2022 and 4.12.2022 are concerned, the same are subsequent to the order dated 25.4.2022 passed by the committee and as the provision provides for punishment preceding the date of recommendation of the committee, the said punishment imposed, cannot be taken into consideration.”
The court further observed that if the petitioner was sent to Open Air Camp pursuant to the order dated April 25, 2022, the punishment dated May 18, 2022 and December 4, 2022 would not have happened.
Thus, the court directed the respondents to send the petitioner to Open Air Camp pursuant to the committee recommendation dated April 25, 2022.
Case Title: Sobha Lal @ Sobhag v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
Coram: Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni