2014 (1) TMI 1817 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence made out under Sections 42 and 45 (12) of the Prisons Act - Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition to quash the FIR? - Held that - The appellant was not a prisoner at the date of the commission of the offence. He could thus not have committed a prison offence as defined under Section 45 of the Act. Hence no offence is made out under Section 45 of the Act. Insofar as Section 42 of the Act is concerned it provides that only that communication which is contrary to the rules made under Section 59 of the Act is prohibited. The FIR for the offence was dated 24.09.2009. This notification will obviously not apply to the case in hand as the alleged offence was committed in 2009 and retrospective effect will not apply in the case of criminal laws. Hence there is no offence made out against the appellant and we cannot accept the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned judgment. We hereby hold that this section cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The case of the appellant clearly falls under category (1) of the grounds of quashing of FIR mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT). On the date of the offence mobile phone was not listed as one of the prohibited articles under the Punjab Prison Manual. Thus no offence is made out under Section 42 of the Act as there was no communication which was done or was attempted to being done contrary to the rules. Further the appellant was not a prisoner on the date of the offence. Hence he could not have committed a prison offence as defined under Section 45 of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The FIR dated 24.09.2009 and the proceedings against the appellant are quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1) Whether an offence is made out under Sections 42 and 45 (12) of the Prisons Act?
2) Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition to quash the FIR?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 42 and 45 of the Prisons Act to determine if an offence was committed. Section 45 defines prison offences, and it was established that the appellant, not being a prisoner at the time, could not have committed a prison offence under this section. Regarding Section 42, it was highlighted that communication contrary to prison rules is prohibited. The Punjab Jail Manual lists prohibited articles, but mobile phones and chargers were not included. Therefore, the communication attempted by the appellant did not violate prison rules, making it not an offence under Section 42. The Prisons (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2011 was also discussed, indicating that the notification for mobile phone possession came after the alleged offence in 2009, rendering it inapplicable retrospectively. Hence, it was concluded that no offence was made out against the appellant under the Prisons Act.

Issue 2:
The judgment assessed the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition to quash the FIR. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. Referring to the case law, it outlined categories where the High Court can exercise this power, including instances where allegations do not constitute an offence. Applying these principles, it was determined that the appellant's case fell under the category where no offence was prima facie made out under Section 42 due to the absence of mobile phones in the list of prohibited articles at the time of the incident. Consequently, the High Court's decision was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, quashing the FIR and proceedings against the appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the legal interpretation of the Prisons Act, specifically Sections 42 and 45, to determine the absence of an offence in the appellant's actions. Additionally, it scrutinized the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition to quash the FIR, ultimately setting it aside based on established legal principles and lack of prima facie evidence of an offence.