MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are undertrial prisoners in Sabarmati Central prison, Ahmedabad. They have two grievances, namely : (1) not allowing them to keep their private tiffin in their barrack at night, and (2) surprise search and seizure during night hours. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these are the elementary rights of human existence to have food and peaceful sleep at night and the Jail authorities are depriving them of these elementary rights which constitute personal liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners submit that as undertrial prisoners, they are entitled and (should be) permitted to have their food from outside twice in a day and the petitioners should be free in the Jail to take their food at the time of their choice at any time and they should be allowed to keep the same with them in the barrack and they cannot be compelled to take their food at the time fixed for the convict prisoners. ( 3 ) AS regards the surprise check at night, it is submitted that before closing the barrack in the evening, there is a complete check and thereafter there is no cause for further check during the night or any surprise check and such check at unreasonable hours would deprive the petitioners-prisoners of peaceful sleep and that would be violative of Art. 21. ( 4 ) IN respect of the first grievance regarding food, reference was made to secs. 31 and 32 of the Prisons Act, 1894. They read as under :"section 31 : Maintenance of certain prisoners from private sources :- a civil prisoner or an unconvicted criminal prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself, and to purchase, or receive from private sources at proper hours, food clothing, bedding or other necessaries, but subject to examination and to such rules as may be approved by the Inspector General. Section 32 : Restriction on transfer of food and clothing between certain prisoners:- no part of any food, clothing, bedding or other necessaries belonging to any civil or unconvicted criminal prisoner shall be given, hired or sold to any other prisoner, and any prisoner transgressing the provisions of this section shall lose the privilege of purchasing food or receiving it from private sources, for such time as the superintendent thinks proper. "it is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners who are unconvicted prisoners (undertrial prisoners) are permitted to maintain themselves and to receive from private sources food at proper hours and subject to rules as may be approved by the Inspector General of Prisons and it is further submitted that the restriction of proper hours is for receipt of food from outside and not for consumption of food and the undertrial prisoners cannot be compelled to take food at the hours fixed by the Jail authorities and it is further submitted that under Sec. 32, there is restriction on transfer of food and breach of that provision is visited with loss of privilege of receiving the food from private source. It is, therefore, submitted that the undertrial prisoners are entitled to keep the food with them even after close of barrack and consume the same at any time of their choice including at night. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the Prisons Act and the Prisons Manual applies to all prisoners including undertrial prisoners. The rules regarding Jail routine in the Jail are provided in Chapter XXII of the Bombay jail Manual, Rule 687 provides for ordinary daily routine and 10-45 a. m. to 11-45 a. m. is the time of morning meals and 4-45 to 5-45 p. m. is the time of the evening meals. It is further provided that these times are approximate and may be altered at the discretion of the Superintendent according to the local circumstances and seasons of the year or consultation with the medical officer. Rule 697 provides that the meals shall be served hot and the prisoner shall take it at a place where the food will be free from contamination and the Convict officers-in-charge shall see that after the meals, the premises are thoroughly cleaned and that every prisoner thoroughly cleans his pots. Rule 699 provides that evening meals shall be served to prisoners from 4-45 p. m. to 5-45 p. m. It is further pointed out that the same time schedule is also provided by the gujarat Prisoners (Routine) Rules, 1973 which has come into force from 1-12- 1973 and the aforesaid timings are fixed for meals. It is also stated in the affidavitin- reply that the uniform practice is followed in all the Jails in the State of gujarat. It is also stated in the affidavitin- reply that the uniform practice is followed in all the Jails in the State of gujarat. It is also stated that about 15% of the undertrial prisoners have their private tiffin arrangement and as on 16-4-1990, only 95 out of 720 undertrial prisoners were having their private tiffin arrangements. The Circular dated 18- 1-1985 is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply wherein the Inspector General of prisons has observed that the practice of taking private tiffins in the Jail and keeping them in the barrack was prevailing. However, it was noticed that the other prisoners who were not entitled to have such facility were also availing this practice and were taking undue advantage of that practice and there was flagrant violation of the provisions of Secs. 31 and 32 of the Act and, therefore, the Inspector General of Prisons had directed all the Jail Superintendents to stop that practice and to see that such undertrial prisoners who have the facility of private tiffins should see that such prisoners take their tiffins near the inside gate of the Jail in presence of an Officer of the Jail. ( 6 ) THE Prisons Act applies to all prisoners including undertrial prisoners, i. e. , a criminal prisoner who is committed to Jail custody under the orders of the Court and the provisions of the Prisons Act and Rules made thereunder are applicable to them and they are subject to the routine fixed for all the prisoners including timings. It cannot be said that prescription of such time for undertrial prisoners is in any way unreasonable or violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The undertrial prisoners are entitled to have the facility of private tiffins and the food from private sources. However, these meals have to be taken according to the rules and regulations of the prison in which the prisoner is committed and, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that fixation of such time schedule and routine for taking meals is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) THE second contention is that the surprise visits by the Jail Officers at night deprives the prisoners of their right to peaceful sleep and is violative of art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) THE second contention is that the surprise visits by the Jail Officers at night deprives the prisoners of their right to peaceful sleep and is violative of art. 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , AIR 1963 SC 1295 . In that case, the Supreme Court held that the "domiciliary visits" of a Police Officer to search and inspect a private house at night would be an intrusion into a residence of a citizen and knocking at his door with disturbance to his sleep and ordinary comforts, though would not amount to violation of Art. 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution, it would amount to deprivation of personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21, as an unauthorised intrusion into a persons home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, would be violative of a common law right of a man and ultimately the liberty. 7a. In the present case, it is not the dwelling place or private house of the prisoner which is the subject-matter of surprise visit. In the present case, the Jail Officers charged with the administration of Jail, its discipline and proper conduct of the prisoners, vsit the barracks at random twice or thrice in a month. This judgment of the Supreme Court cannot in any manner be pressed into service where the prisoner is not in his dwelling house or private house. The prisoner is an inmate of the prison and the prison officers are not outsiders. They are the persons in-charge of the prison and its administration and they are charged with the duty to see that the prison administration is run properly and that nothing untoward or illegal happens in the Jail and for that, surprise checks are necessary and incidental part of their duty to maintain necessary vigil and instil sense of enforcement of Jail discipline and Jail rules and regulations. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even the undertrial prisoner has all the rights of a free citizen except confinement pending trial and wherever he lives or sleeps is his dwelling place and he is entitled to peaceful sleep as a part of his personal liberty. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even the undertrial prisoner has all the rights of a free citizen except confinement pending trial and wherever he lives or sleeps is his dwelling place and he is entitled to peaceful sleep as a part of his personal liberty. Even though a prisoner is entitled to peaceful sleep, that does not mean that the prison authorities do not have a right to any surprise visit. Such visit and checking once in a fortnight or so cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable or in any manner violative of the personal liberty of the prisoners. ( 9 ) IT is further submitted that during day time and before the barrack is closed in the evening, there is thorough check and, therefore, surprise vsit at night is absolutely unjustified and unreasonable. The Circular dated 17-12-1986 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons in this connection recites that with a view to control the Jail discipline and with a view to improve efficiency of administration, surprise visit and check was very necessary and with a view to detect such undersirable activity in the Jails of the State and with a view to increase the efficiency of the Jail Staff, Inspector general of Prisons was satisfied that such surprise visit was necessary. ( 10 ) IN exercise of the powers under Sec. 58 of the Prisons Act, Gujarat prisons (Staff Functions) Rules, 1975 have been enacted. Rule 8 provides for inspection of prisons and it provides that Inspector General shall inspect every central Prison and District Prison at least once in a month and in addition to this regular inspection, he may also inspect any prison if he considers that there is any special reason for doing so. The Inspector General of Prisons had, therefore, authorised three officers of different Jails for surprise inspection and the Officer of Ahmedabad Central Prison was directed to visit at least once in a month baroda Central Prison or any other Jail in the State. The Inspector General of Prisons had, therefore, authorised three officers of different Jails for surprise inspection and the Officer of Ahmedabad Central Prison was directed to visit at least once in a month baroda Central Prison or any other Jail in the State. Similarly, the Officer of baroda Central Prison was directed to make at least once in a month surprise visit of Ahmedabad Central Prison or any other prison in the State and the prison Officer (Principal of Jail Staff Training School) was also directed to make at least once in a month surprise visit of Ahmedabad, or any other prison and it is further directed that such surprise inspection shall be without any prior notice and detailed report shall be made to the Inspector General of Prisons. ( 11 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid circular of Inspector General of Prisons, in the year 1989, on 20 occasions, such checking was done in Sabarmati Central Prison and in the year 1990, upto the date of the affidavit-in-reply, i. e. 19-4-1990, such checking was done on 8 occasions. It is not clarified as to how many of these inspections were conducted at night. However, assuming that some or many of them were conducted at night, time, it is to be noticed that violation of Jail rules can take place at night time even after checking at the time of closure of the barrack in the evening. The very fact that an outside officer is directed to conduct surprise check indicates that some members of the local Jail staff may be involved in the illegal activities that might occur during night time. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that such things have happened where illegal activities had been carried on during night time. Even otherwise, if the authorities have an apprehension that such activities may take place at night time, they are duty-bound to see that such activities do not take place or that they are detected and if surprise check is made at periodical intervals, it has a direct impact on the Jail administration and it has a direct effect in curbing such activities. It cannot be said that the jail authorities do not have any power to make the Jail administration effective and efficient and it cannot be said that this in any manner violates any personal liberty of a prisoner. There is no merit in the contention that such surprise inspection at night which is necessary in the interest of the effective and efficient administration of the Jail is in any manner violative of the personal liberty of the prisoner. There is no merit in the second contention also. ( 12 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. .