Dismissed

All Under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail Nagpur v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Bombay HC15 Dec 2010WP/597/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Handled a writ petition by jail prisoners comprising complaints against jail administration. The court investigated the complaint and found the petition fraudulent due to forged signatures and inclusion of non-inmates. Disposing of the petition on the basis of the Prison Department's enquiry report confirming these irregularities.

What did the court decide?

null

All Under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail Nagpur… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.597 of 2010

¶4

[All under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail, Nagpur Vs.
State of Mah. & two others]

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Petition is received by Post.
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for respondents.

¶7

 -----

¶8

CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 15th December, 2010.

¶10

1.This is a Letter-Petition purportedly
signed by large number of prisoners, making
grievances in relation to jail administration
and complaints against Shri Nimje, the Officer
in Jail.

¶11

2.We thought it proper that the mater
should be looked into by the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons [East Region], Nagpur. We
accordingly directed the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons to look into the matter,
enquire into the facts and furnish his report.

¶12

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
[East Region], Nagpur, has conducted enquiry and
furnished the report. The report accompanies

¶13

¶14

statements of various prisoners named as
petitioners. The substance of the report, inter
alia, is as follows:-

¶15

[a]Many of the signatories were
not in jail on the date of
purported signatures.

¶16

[b]Many of the signatures are of
the persons who do not sign,
are illiterate and put thumb
impressions.

¶17

[c]Many of the signatures do not
tally with the signatures of
the persons named.

¶18

[d]Theprisonershave
complimented working of Mr.
Nimje and there are no
grievances in that regard.

¶19

4.We see no reasons to disagree with the
contents of the report submitted by Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, particularly in
the background that a collective complaint where
names of the persons, who are not in jail, are
included and signatories, who do not sign, are
shown to have signed. This creates a doubt
about the truthfulness of the complaint.
Moreover, the matter has been looked into.

¶20

5.Learned APP further assures that in the
event of a genuine complaint in future, the
matter will be looked into.

¶21

¶22

6.In view of these findings and
observations, we dispose of the petition.

¶23

JudgeJudge

¶24

|Hedau|

All Under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail Nagpur v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail Nagpur v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Saroj W/O Vinod Sardar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Mahendra Purushottam Londhe, Convict No. C 8074 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Divisiona and Anr.

Gaju @ Gajanan Vishwanath Sonwane and Anr. Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Wardha

Rajendra S/O Nilkanthrao Khare Vs the Registrar General, High Court of Bombay and 2 Oths

Mukesh Waman Bansod, Convict No. C 5939 Vs the D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.