CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN a sessions trial held at Alipore, 24-Parganas the petitioner was convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. On 9th June, 1969 the Governor of West Bengal had commuted his said sentence to imprisonment for life. As a life convict, he is now undergoing detention. He is at present lodged in Alipore Central Jail. Whether he was a prisoner in Dum Dum Central Jail, the Superintendent of the said Jail by his order dated 20th March, 1975 by way of punishment had forfeited connection with an incident at Barrackpore Lock Up. ( 2 ) ON the recommendation of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal by his order dated 18th April, 1975 as a punishment, inter alia, forfeited the entire remission earned by him and also excluded him from remission system for a period of three years. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ application has challenged the validity of the aforesaid two punishment order passed against him. ( 4 ) MR. Amar Raha, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail had no jurisdiction to forfeit four days of the remission earned by the petitioner for alleged acts committed not inside the said jail but in Barrackpore Jail Lock Up. Mr. Raha has further submitted that the order of the Inspector General of Prisons was illegal and he had no jurisdiction to forfeit the entire remission earned by him so far and also debarring him from remission system for three years. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that according to Rule 706, Chapter XIX of the West Bengal Jail Code, where the Superintendent has reason to believe that a prisoner has committed offences specified in the said rules, he shall refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Raha, the substance of the charge against the petitioner was that he along with four other convict prisoners on 4. 4. 1975 had administered to the inmates of Dum Dum Central Jail and several jail officials poisonous substance with the intent to cause hurt of such persons or with the intent to commit commission of offence. According to Mr. Raha, the substance of the charge against the petitioner was that he along with four other convict prisoners on 4. 4. 1975 had administered to the inmates of Dum Dum Central Jail and several jail officials poisonous substance with the intent to cause hurt of such persons or with the intent to commit commission of offence. Causing of such hurt by means of poison is an offence under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code which is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail himself was not competent to determine whether the petitioner was guilty of the said charge of administering 'jamal Gota" poison. He was bound to refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry. Accordingly, the order for forfeiture of the petitioner's remission for having committed the said offence was without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE petitioner's contention in respect of forfeiture of four days remission has little merit. The petitioner is serving out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore on 24th June, 1967. While as a convicted prisoner he was under detention at Dum Dum Central Jail, he was produced before a Magistrate of Barrackpore in connection with another criminal case against him. Presumably, the learned Magistrate before whom a charge of an offence against the petitioner was pending, had directed the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail under S. 312 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act to produce the petitioner. The Superintendent of the said Jail under S. 5 of the said Act had caused the petitioner to be taken to the Court and had caused the petitioner to be detained in custody near the court of the learned Magistrate, Barrackpore. Another prisoner, Sadhan Mukherjee, had complained to the Jail Authorities that while the petitioner was so detained, he has assaulted Sadhan Mukherjee. The petitioner, in my view, was still in charge of the Jail Authorities who had caused the petitioner to be produced in the court of the trying Magistrate at Barrackpore. Therefore, any act of indiscipline by the petitioner during such detention could be punished by the Jail Authorities. Under S. 45 of the Prison Act any assault or use of criminal force is a prison offence and the Superintendent of Dum Dum Jail was competent to punish the petitioner for the said prison offence. Therefore, any act of indiscipline by the petitioner during such detention could be punished by the Jail Authorities. Under S. 45 of the Prison Act any assault or use of criminal force is a prison offence and the Superintendent of Dum Dum Jail was competent to punish the petitioner for the said prison offence. ( 6 ) BEFORE I consider the legality of the other punishment order forfeiting the petitioner's entire remission, I may set out some of the facts which appear from the records produced by the respondents. While the petitioner was detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail, the Jailer of the said jail had reported that on 10th April, 1975 he had conspired with convicts Taradas Chatterjee, Sk Abdul Hai and Harendra Nath Santra and got four anonymous lettrs written for them 'giving false allegations against the Jail Administration with a mala fide intention. ' Those were seized from inside the Jail on 8th April, 1975. Secondly, it was reported by the Jailer that the petitioner had smuggled inside the jail five stamped envelopes unauthorisedly and had attempted the above letters to be dispatched stealthily. The third report of the said Jailer againt the petitioner was that he had conspired with the convicts Tarapada Chatterjee, Sk. Abdul Hai, Harendra Nath Santra and Abdul Samad Sk. and had smuggled inside the jail "jamal Gota" (a strong poisonous purgative ). He had made over a good quantity of that in powder form to convict Abdul Samad Sk. on 4. 4. 1975 who had mixed with the food-staff arranged by other prisoners and prepared on 4. 4. 1975 on the occasion of the Srudh ceremony of convict Nasser Gharami's deceased father causing food poisoning and stomach upset of 28 prisoners, 9 officers and 4 warders who took this food. ( 7 ) THEREUPON, the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail drew up a statement of offence committed by the petitioner and made the following recommendations to the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal. The Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail in his recommendation stated as follows: - 11. 4. 75. Perused the charges which are serious in nature. Heard the convict Anil Basak who point blank admitted the first two charges. The Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail in his recommendation stated as follows: - 11. 4. 75. Perused the charges which are serious in nature. Heard the convict Anil Basak who point blank admitted the first two charges. As regards charge No. 3 he admitted that he got "jamal Gota" smuggled through one warder (Motilal Das) some days earlier for his personal use but he did not use the same poisoning the food-stuff on 4/4/75 as alleged. Heard convict Abdul Hai, convict Anil Mondal, convict Mohan Singh who corroborated the fact of his confession to them. The accused convict identified the unauthorized powder "jamal Gota" shown to him. Convict Bindeswar Singh, Subhas Dey, Paresh Dutta, Akhil Majumdar Anil Basak made plain confession about his implication (charge three) near the Central Tower on 9. 4. 75. The written statement of Con. Abdul Hai is sufficient credible evidence against him and brings the last charge home without an inkling of doubt. From above I am fully convinced that con. Anil Basak is fully guilty of the three charges leveled against him and the offence as being heinous and serious I recommend for punishment forfeiting of all the remission earned by the convict till date. 2. Permanent degradation to O. P. 3. Debarred from remission system for three years. Send papers to I. G. of Prisons for his kind perusal and orders. The Con. Should be removed from this jail. ( 8 ) THE Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail along with his Memo No. 5790-RB dated 16th April, 1975 submitted to the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal the descriptive rules along with the aforesaid statement of offences committed by the petitioner and four others on 4th April, 1975 and 8th April, 1975 and the punishments recommended thereof for approval. The Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail also suggested in his memo that the said prisoners be transferred to other jails as ordered by the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal during his visit to the jail on 13th April, 1975. ( 9 ) THE Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal by his Memo o. 313/con-47/75 dated 21st April, 1975 transferred the petitioner to Midnapore Central Jail. Four other convicted persons were also transferred from Dum Dum Central Jail. ( 9 ) THE Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal by his Memo o. 313/con-47/75 dated 21st April, 1975 transferred the petitioner to Midnapore Central Jail. Four other convicted persons were also transferred from Dum Dum Central Jail. The Inspector General of Prisons in his said memo further stated "i have perused case records prepared by you in connection with major punishment to be awarded to the culprits. I find that your record of reasons is satisfactory for rule of natural justice as may be expected of a executive officer. Having applied my judicial mind, I direct the following punishment in respect of the said five prisoners: - (i) All Jail remission earned by them so far is forfeited. (ii) They are debarred from remission system for three years. (iii) They are degraded from the rank of convict overseer to ordinary prisoners. They should never be made convict overseer or night watchman which is a position of trust and responsibility. Their prison conduct should be adjudged as "very Bad" for the next three years. (iv) This conduct should be pointed out if and when the case of pre-mature release under 14/20 years taken up. " ( 10 ) THE Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Home Jail Department by his Memo No. 1075-HJ stated that the Inspector of Police should instruct the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail to lodge a F. I. R. with the local police station in connection with the incident of alleged poisoning inside the jail on 4. 4. 1975. The Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Home Jail Department by another memo dated 26th April, 1975 had disapproved the fact that the feast was allowed to be arranged inside the jail by a life convict on 4. 4. 1975. ( 11 ) THE Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail by his memo dated 22nd May, 1975 had informed the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal that a F. I. R. had been lodged with the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station reporting the above incident as desired by the Government in Home Department No. 1075-H. J. The records produced before me contain a note that the police case in connection with the "jamal Gota" poison dated 4. 1. 1975 instituted against the prisoner in Dum Dum Police Station was still pending. 1. 1975 instituted against the prisoner in Dum Dum Police Station was still pending. The I. G. of Prisons in his note dated 18th December 1978 also stated that the police case was pending investigation with the Sub-Inspector, Jiban Krishna Mukherjee. ( 12 ) THE records also contain a large number of representations made for restoring the remission earned by the petitioner and also for proper medical treatment of the petitioner, Anil Basak, who was suffering from various ailments. On 15th February, 1979 Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal informed the Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail that the prisoner, Anil Basak may be allowed to be brought back to the remission system with effect from 21. 4. 1978. According to the Inspector General of Prisons, the police case in connection with the "jamal Gota" poison instituted against the petitioner was still pending and he also referred to the present writ application. The Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal in his said order stated that in the light of the said facts, review of the orders of punishment inflicted on the petitioner was not possible. ( 13 ) THE Superintendent of a Prison under S. 11 of the Prisons Act subject to the orders of Inspector General shall manage the prison in all matters relating to discipline, labour expenditure, punishment and control. Section 45 of the Prisons Act declares the acts mentioned therein to be prison offences. The Superintendent under S 46 may examine any person attaching any such offence and determine thereon and punish such offences by imposing the punishments mentioned therein. The power of the Superintendent to award plurality of punishment is subject to the exceptions mentioned in S. 47. Except by order of a court of justice no punishment other than punishment specified in Ss 46 and 48 shall be inflicted on any prisoner. The State Government under S. 59 of the Prisons Act has been given power to make rules consistent with the said Act. ( 14 ) THE West Bengal Jail Code is a compilation of the statutory rule, executive institutions, extracts from the rules of the Supreme Court and the Government of India's instructions. The said edition of the West Bengal Jail Code gives a list of statutory rules of the Jail Code. ( 14 ) THE West Bengal Jail Code is a compilation of the statutory rule, executive institutions, extracts from the rules of the Supreme Court and the Government of India's instructions. The said edition of the West Bengal Jail Code gives a list of statutory rules of the Jail Code. According to the list of Statutory Rules of the Jail Code, Rules 705, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 713, 714, 716, 718, 719, 720, 721, 724, 730 and 734 were included in the Statutory Rules as published by the Notification No. 1325-H J. dated 8th June, 1966. The Superintendent may award punishments in respect of prison offences declared by S. 45 of the Prison Act, provisions of which have been reproduced in Rule 704 of the Code. The Superintendent may also award punishment in respect of commission of acts which have been defined under S. 59 (1) of the Prisons Act by the State Government as constituting prison offences. Rule 706 which also has statutory force deals with the acts which constitute both prison offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code. Where the Superintendent has reason to believe that a prisoner has committed any of the offences specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 of the Rule 706, he shall refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that having regard to the serious nature of the said acts mentioned in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 irrespective whether the same also amount to prison offences the Superintendent cannot exercise his disciplinary powers but shall refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. But in case the prisoner commits any other act which is both a prison offence and also an offence under the Indian Penal Code, the Superintendent of the said Jail has a discretion either to exercise his own powers of punishment under the Jail Code or to refer to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry into it in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The Rule 706, however, forbids double punishment in respect of these other acts which constitute both prison offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Rule 706, however, forbids double punishment in respect of these other acts which constitute both prison offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In case, a prisoner frequently commits prison offences or the Superintendent is of the opinion that the prisoner is not adequately punishable by infliction of any punishment which he has power to award, he may under S 52 of the Prisons Act read with Rule 706 of the Code forward a prisoner to the Court of the District Magistrate or of any Magistrate, 1st Class, for enquiry and trial. ( 15 ) I may now refer to the Supreme Court decision in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325 , which had, inter alia, considered the power of the Jail Superintendent under the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules, 1950. The Rules 39 and 40 and 41 of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules, 1950 provided for offences and punishments. Rule 39 laid down certain rules of discipline. Rule 40 provided that each detenu who controverted any of the provisions of Rule 39 or refuses to obey any order issued therein or does any of the acts mentioned in Rule 40 shall be deemed to have committed a jail offence. Rule 41 (1) of the said Rules authorized the Superintendent after enquiry to award to a detenu found guilty one or more of the punishments specified. The sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 bears some resemblance to the second part of Rule 706 of the West Bengal Jail Code. The Superintendent under rule 41 (2) could forward a detenue to the court of a Magistrate, 1st Class having jurisdiction when he is of the opinion that by reason of frequently committing such offence or otherwise the detenu is not adequately punishable by himself under sub-rule (2) of Rule 41. Under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 acts constituting the offences was punishable under the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for a term of exceeding one year. The rules did not preclude the detenu with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court Detenus Rules, 1950 at page 331 of the reports had observed "the whole scheme of R. 41 is to constitute the Jail Superintendent only an administrative authority to maintain jail discipline and inflict summary punishment on the detenu for breach of that discipline by committing jail offence. The Supreme Court Detenus Rules, 1950 at page 331 of the reports had observed "the whole scheme of R. 41 is to constitute the Jail Superintendent only an administrative authority to maintain jail discipline and inflict summary punishment on the detenu for breach of that discipline by committing jail offence. It is only when the Jail Superintendent considers that the offence is not adequately punishable by him that he can send the case to the Magistrate. If he actually himself punishes he cannot, under these rules, refer the case again to the Magistrate. " The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain's case (supra), at page 332-35 had point out that so far as the prosecution of the detenu under Ss. 147 and 149 was concerned that was an offence which was not comprised in the jail offence enumerated in Rule 40 nor could it have been dealt with by the Jail Superintendent under Rule41 (1 ). That offence was moreover covered by the proviso to Rule 41 (2) of the Rules and was exclusively triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution of the detenu concerned before the Magistrate for the offences under Ss. 332, 353 and Rules 145 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was not in violation of Articles 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitution and must, therefore, proceed. ( 16 ) THERE is considerable substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, that in case the Superintendent is of the opinion that a prisoner has committed any of the act specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 of Rule 706, he is required to refer the case to the Magistrate for enquiry and he himself my not award punishment specified in Rule 708. ( 17 ) THE petitioner was a life convict. Therefore, under Rule 750 (c) of the Jail Code for the purpose of remission the period of his detention imprisonment should be treated as equivalent to 20 years. The Chapter XXI of the said Code provides for remission, cancellation etc. The Supreme Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1961 SC. Therefore, under Rule 750 (c) of the Jail Code for the purpose of remission the period of his detention imprisonment should be treated as equivalent to 20 years. The Chapter XXI of the said Code provides for remission, cancellation etc. The Supreme Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1961 SC. 600 , inter alia, held that after the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 a person who had been sentenced to transportation for life should be dealt with in the same manner as one sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term. Unless the said sentence is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life term in prison. The Supreme Court further held that the remission earned by the petitioner of the said case under the Prisons Act - ordinary, special and State - would be given credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the purpose of working out the remissions the sentence of transportation of life is ordinarily equated with a definite period, but it is only for that particular purpose and not for any other purposes as the sentence for transportation of life or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment is one of indefinite duration, the remission so earned do not in practice held such a convict as it is not possible to predicate the time of his death. That is why the rules provide for a procedure to enable the appropriate Government to remit the sentence under S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration of the relevant factors, including the period of remission earned. The Supreme Court further held that the question of remission was exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government. Therefore, in Gopal Vinayak Godse's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the petitioner had not yet acquired any right to release and dismissed his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. ( 18 ) THE Superintendent of a Jail or the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal may punish a prisoner only in accordance with the provisions of the Prisons Act and the Rules framed under S. 59 of the said Act. The West Bengal Jail Code incorporates the said provisions. ( 18 ) THE Superintendent of a Jail or the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal may punish a prisoner only in accordance with the provisions of the Prisons Act and the Rules framed under S. 59 of the said Act. The West Bengal Jail Code incorporates the said provisions. If a prisoner is punished by the Superintendent of the Jail or the Inspector General of Prisons for an act which is not a jail offence, he may file a writ application and this court may quash or set aside the orders of the prison authorities which are in excess of or without jurisdiction. Thus, this court may correct errors of jurisdiction committed by these authorities under the Prisons Act and the West Bengal Jail Code. I have already held that the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central jail did not transgress his authority under the Jail Code when he had found the petitioner guilty of assaulting Sudhir Mukherjee and in forfeiting his four days remission. ( 19 ) I may now consider whether the Inspector General of Prisons by his order dated 21st April, 1975 had acted within his jurisdiction by, inter alia forfeiting jail remission earned by the petitioner. On 10th April, 1975 the Jailer of Dum Dum Central Jail had reported against the petitioner in respect of three alleged offences. Therefore, the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail had recommended forfeiture of the entire remission earned by the petitioner and for debarring him from remission systems for three years as a punishment for all the three charges. The Inspector General of Prisons had accepted the said recommendations and by his Memo dated 21st April, 1075 directed that the punishment in question be imposed upon the petitioner in respect of the said charges. The petitioner's remission was purported to be forfeited for a period exceeding three months. Therefore, in terms of Rule 713 Chapter XIX of the West Bengal Jail Code such sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons was necessary. ( 20 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has not questioned that at least first two allegations were prison offences. It was alleged that the petitioner had conspired with three others and got four anonymous letters written making false allegations against the Jail Administration with a mala fide intention. ( 20 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has not questioned that at least first two allegations were prison offences. It was alleged that the petitioner had conspired with three others and got four anonymous letters written making false allegations against the Jail Administration with a mala fide intention. Secondly the petitioner had allegedly smuggled inside the jail five stamped envelopes unauthorisedly and had attempted to dispatch the said letters which were seized. The Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail in his report to the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal had recorded that the petitioner Anil Basak, had point blank admitted the said two charges. The third charge against the petitioner was that he along with four others smuggled inside the jail "jamal Gota" which was a strong poisonous purgative. He already made over a good quantity of that in the same with the food stuff prepared on 4. 4. 1975. Thus, the third charge consisted of two parts. The petitioner had illegally brought inside the jail poisonous substance. Secondly, he along with others had caused the said poisonous substance to be mixed the food which was served to the convicts and jail officials of Dum Dum Central Jail. The second part of the charge if true showed that prima facie an offence under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. But the first part of the third charge, i. e. , smuggling a poisonous substance inside the jail by itself did not come within the mischief of S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was a prison offence. ( 21 ) THUS the allegations relating to the smuggling of stamped envelopes and writing anonymous letters containing false allegations against the Jail Administration came within the scope of disciplinary jurisdiction of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail. The first part of the third charge relating to smuggling of a poisonous substance inside the jail also amounted to breaches of discipline. Section 59 (1) inter alia provides that all acts of indiscipline that is to say acts or omissions which a prisoner is under rules of the Code are enjoined not to do is punishable as a prison offence. But administering or causing to be taken any poison etc. with intent to commit offence is punishable under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is not a prison offence. But administering or causing to be taken any poison etc. with intent to commit offence is punishable under S. 328 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is not a prison offence. The said offence is triable in sessions court. Therefore, neither the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Jail nor the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal was competent to punish the petitioner in respect of the said charge of making over "jamal Gota" to another convict for mixing the same with the food stuff served to the prisoners and jail officials on 4th April, 1975. ( 22 ) IN my view, the impugned order for forfeiting the entire remission earned by the petitioner and also depriving him for earning remission for three years should be quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the alleged prison offences committed by the petitioner. The Inspector General of Prisons did not award to the petitioner separate punishment in respect of the charges mentioned in the recommendation dated 16th April, 1975 of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail. The Inspector General of Prisons in his impugned order dated 21st April, 1975 did not at all consider that the said allegation of mixing a poisonous substance in the food served to prisoners and jail officials on 4. 4. 1975 did not amount to a prison offence. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner for the said charge was without jurisdiction and accordingly null and void. ( 23 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Bidyabhusan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779 at page 786, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said observations in Bidyaphushan Mohapatra's case (supra), were made in the context of the constitutional requirement for giving reasonable opportunity to a government servant before he is removed. Wherein an enquiry held in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution a Government servant is found guilty, the High Court is not concerned to decide whether the sentence impugned is appropriate having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanor established. The reasons which induced the punishing authority in an enquiry consistent with rules are not justifiable. The reasons which induced the punishing authority in an enquiry consistent with rules are not justifiable. ( 24 ) IN the instant case, the enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegation of administering person with food served to prisoners and jail officials on 4. 4. 1975 was not authorized by the Prisons Act or in the West Bengal Jail Code. ( 25 ) IN the instant case, this court is not concerned with the reasons which induced the Inspector General of Prisons who punished the petitioner for allegedly administering a poisonous substance with food mentioned in the 3rd charge framed by the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail. I am also not determining what would be appropriate punishment of the petitioner. Unlike Bidyabhusan Mohapatra's case (supra), the impugned enquiry in respect of the second part of the third charge was not in accordance with the enquiry prescribed by the West Bengal Jail Code. When it is found that neither the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central jail nor the Inspector General of Prisons was competent to hold any enquiry in respect of the said charge by the said authorities being without jurisdiction, their orders for punishing the petitioner for the said charge would be without jurisdiction. There is no question in the instant case of now directing the Jail Authorities who reviewed the penalty of forfeiture of petitioner's remission. The said forfeiture order being without jurisdiction the same should be set aside. I have already mentioned that in case the Superintendent had reason to believe that the petitioner had committed any of the offences specified in Rule 706 of the West Bengal Jail Code, he was required to refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. In case of the offences specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 of Rule 706 the Superintendent had no discretion to determine whether he will use his own powers of discretion to move the Magistrate. The Superintendent has such discretion in respect of acts other than those specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 and which amounts to prison offence. For the foregoing reasons, the dicta of the Supreme Court in Bidyabhushan Mohapatra's case (supra), at page 789 are entire inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Superintendent has such discretion in respect of acts other than those specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 and which amounts to prison offence. For the foregoing reasons, the dicta of the Supreme Court in Bidyabhushan Mohapatra's case (supra), at page 789 are entire inapplicable to the facts of the case. ( 26 ) I accordingly, make this Rule absolute in part and quash the impugned order dated 18th April, 1975 forfeiting the entire remission earned by the petitioner and also excluding him from remission system for a period of three years. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. I discharge the Rule in respect of the order of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail dated 20th March, 1975 forfeiting four days out of the remission earned by the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute in part and quashed the impugned order dated 18th April, 1975 forfeiting the entire remission.