The High Court found the following facts to be admitted between the parties That while undergoing life imprisonment in the District Jail, Bhiwani, the Petitioner formed an unlawful assembly with his companyprisoners and in execution of the companymon object of that assembly i.e. to escape from the Jail, injured seriously a jail warden that the petitioner along with his companyrisoners and companyaccused was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, and that Court companyvicted him and his company accused, and sentenced the prisoner to one year RI under section 148 IPC, six months RI under Sections 342/149, two years RI under Section 332/149 IPC, two years RI under sec.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the State in the High Court, the stand taken by the respondent was that the Jail Superintendent, in exercise of the powers under para 633 A of the Manual, after obtaining sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons, was companypetent to impose the punishment and that the imposition of such a punishment did number offend the rule of double Jeopardy.
224 IPC, and seven years RI under Sec.
A First Information Report was lodged and the respondent was sent up for trial for various offences under the Indian penal Code to the Session Court.
DR.ANAND.J This appeal by Special Leave raises an interesting question about the scope of para 633 A of the Punjab Jail Manual hereinafter referred to as the Manual relating to cancellation of remission earned by a prisoner.
Consequently the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, dated 17.9.1984, was quashed and set aside.
The State has filed this appeal by special leave.
District Jail Bhiwani vide order dated the respondent had been, on the same allegations and for the same offence, companyvicted and punished by the Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal trial.
