# C/M, J.I.C., Azamgarh & another v. R.D.D.E

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-j-i-c-azamgarh-another-v-r-d-d-e-39171
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
21
16. It would not be out of place to mention that the validity of the
election cannot be convassed or determined before this court in the
writ jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter has to be decided by the
civil courts. If the petitioners were really aggrieved on account of the
recognition of a lady which according to them has been elected not
in accordance with law, there was nothing to prevent them to file a
civil suit before the competent court. The fact remains that the
respondent no.4 committee has been recognised. It is functioning as
such by managing the affairs of the institution . Any interference at
this stage by this court would result in incalculable harm to the
institution and its students. The supreme interest of the students and
institution cannot be ignored merely because certain persons are
fighting, in their litigative zeal to grab power. Any disturbance in the
functioning of the respondent no.4 is likely to hamper the smooth
running of the institution. The expediency demands that things
should be allowed to go on.

17. For the reasons stated above, I find that both the petitions are
devoid of any merit and substance. .Interference by invoking the
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is wholly unwarranted. Both the writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed without any order as to costs.

Petitions Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7('$//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
'$7('$//$+$%$' 129(0%(5

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '3 02+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( '3 02+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -

+$%($6 &25386 :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

:DOL 0RKDPPDG
« 3HWLWLRQHU,Q -DLO
9HUVXV
6XSHULQWHQGHQW'LVWULFW-DLO%XODQGVKDKU RUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 'D\D 6KDQNDU 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 $*$

1998
------
November, 25
1999
------
C/M, J.I.C.,
Azamgarh &
another
 Vs.
R.D.D.E.
(Secondary),
Azamgarh &
Others
------
O.P.Garg,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
22
6HFWLRQ RI 1DWLRQDO 6HFXULW\ $FW WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI
WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV VXEPLWWHG RQ ZKLFK ZDV UHFHLYHG E\
WKH FHQWUDO JRYW RQ 7KH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ ZDV GHFLGHG
RQ KHOG WKDW WKLV LQRUGLQDWH DQG XQH[SODLQHG GHOD\ LQ
GHFLGLQJ WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ KDV UHQGHUHG WKH GHWHQWLRQ LOOHJDO

By the Court

1. Petitioner Wali Mohammad of this habeas corpus petition has
challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security
Act, 1980 (thereinafter referred to as the Act) under the order dated
30.11.1997 (annexure-I to the petitioner), passed by respondent no. 2
and also his continued detention under the aforesaid order. He has
also prayed that the respondents may be directed to release the
petitioner from detention forthwith.

2. Along with the order of detention dated 30.11.1997 petitioner was
also served the grounds on which basis respondent no. 2 formed his
subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention against the
petitioner. The grounds have been filed as Annexure II to the writ
petition. The facts stated in the grounds are that the petitioner is a
criminal and daring person and in order to get illegal financial
benefits, commits heinous crimes in a planned manner, armed with
illegal weapons with his accomplices on account of which residents
of Bulandshahr area live under fear and terror of the petitioner and
do not dare to open their mouth against the petitioner and
accomplices and are not able to muster courage to lodge any report.
The people at large suffer from ill effects of the criminal activities of
the petitioner and his accomplices which also affects prejudicially
the maintenance of the public order. The petitioner and his
accomplice Riyasat, on 11.9.1997, committed robbery in a daring
manner and looted the amount of salary of Government employees in
broad day light at pistol point by which an atmosphere of fear and
terror prevailed in the locality, residents of which felf insecure and
they ran helter skelter to save their life. There was a panic on the
busiest road of the town. A short description of the criminal activities
of the petitioner and his accomplice has also been mentioned therein
as under:

3. That on 11.9.1997, at about 11.30 A.M., Shri Brij Bhushan Gupta,
Junior Engineer (IV) and Shri Radha Kant Sharma, clerk of
Anupshahr Branch of Ganga Canal Division, Bulandshahr, withdrew
an amount of Rs.82,550/- from State Bank of India, Bulandshahr as
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
23
salary of the employees of the department and were coming back to
their office. When they reached near the Kothi of Dr. S.P.K. Sharma,
situate on Delhi Road, two criminals suddenly came from their front
side; on of them was armed with a country-mae pistol, he fired at the
aforesaid employees and another criminal entered into a scuffle with
them. Both the employees felt nervous due to this sudden attack; the
two criminals snatched the bag and ran away towards the Central
School. On account of this activity in which the Government money
was looted in broad day light on the main road of the town, a panic
was created, the shop keepers and passers by were stunned and were
seen running for their security; some persons closed their doods,
fear and commotion prevailed. At that time the Inspector in-charge
Police Station Kotwali with police force on a geep appeared at the
place of occurrence. Brij Bhushan Gupta gave them information
about the occurrence. Brij Bhushan Gupta gave them information
about the occurrence. The Inspector in-charge immediately give
signal to send more police force and he also entered into chase and
search of the criminals. Report of this occurrence was lodged at
Police Station Kotwali, Bulandshahr and was registered as case
crime no.679 of 1997, under Section 394 I.P.C.

4. Both the aforesaid Government employees and the Inspector incharge and the Police force accompanying him, proceeded towards
the side in which the criminals had run away. Additional police force
also reached. Police made an elaborate arrangement for arresting the
culprits and chased them from all the sides. When the police force
reached All Saint public School, some persons informed that two
criminals with a bag have crossed the railway line and have run
towards agricultural fields. The Inspector in-charge and the police
force when reached hear the grove of Ram Pal Singh, they located
the two culprits; the Police cautioned, chased and surrounded them.
The culprits fire at the police party but the police force kept their
courage and arrested the culprits at 1.15 P.M. near a Juar field where
the two culprits had suddenly fallen down near the place where
bricks were lying. Out of the two persons arrested, one was the
petitioner Wali Mohammad and another was Riyasat. Brij Bhushan
Gupta and Radha Kant identified them in presence of the Inspector
in-charge and informed him that these two persons snatched the
money kept in the bag. The bag was recovered from Riyasat with the
entire money of Rs.82550/-. An ilegal knife was also recovered from
him. From the possession of the petitioner a country made pistol of
.315 bore with empty cartriages in its barrel and two live cartridges
were recovered. The recovery memos were prepared separately in
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
24
respect of the money recovered and the illegal fire-arms on which
basis cases were registered as Case Crime No. 680 of 1997, under
Section 307 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 681 of 1997, under Section 25 of
the Arms Act against Wali Mohd. And case Crime No.682 of 1997,
under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was registered against Riyasat.
After investigation charge sheets were submitted in and are under
consideration of the Court. On account of the recovery of the amount
in case Crime No.679 of 1997, under Section 394 I.P.C., Section 411
I.P.C. was also added. In this case also after investigation charge
sheet has been submitted in Court which is under consideration.

5. On account of the criminal activities of the petitioner and his
companion during the police encounter, the persons who were
working in fields and passers by were under rear and terror which
affected the public order badly and there was serous breach of law
and order.

6. On 2.9.1997, at about 9.15 A.M., an amount of Rs.8500/- was
forcibly snatched from Mukesh, son of Suresh Chand, resident of
Mohalla Fatehganj, district Bulandshahr while he was proceeding on
cycle to his shop in New Grain Mandi near Anup Shahr Adda, by
three criminals who came in a blue scooter. As the criminals
possessed fire-arms, the victim couldnot face them and they escaped
successfully but the victim and the witness recognized the culprits. A
report of this occurrence was lodged as case Crime No. 105/299/97,
under section 356 I.P.C.

7. After the arrest of the petitioner on 11.9.1997, Mukesh
complainant identified the petitioner and Riyasat and also informed
the police of New Grain Mandi Police outpost. He also claimed that
he can identify the accused as they committed the offence of loot. On
this information a case Crime No.209/105/97, under Section 356
I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. On interrogation the
petitioner admitted his involvement in the aforesaid crime which has
been recorded in General Diary No. 50 of 11.9.1997 at Police Station
Kotwali, Bulandshahr. The case is still under investigation with the
police. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with case
crime no. 679 of 1997, under Section 394/411 I.P.C. and case crime
no. 299/105 of 1997, under Section 356 I.P.C. and presently confined
in district jail, Bulandshahr but the petitioner has filed bail
applications and is trying to get himself released on bail. There is
surong possibility that the petitioner shall be successful in his
aforesaid object. If he is released on bail he shall again indulge in
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
25
similar activities affecting the public order. He shall also pressurise
the witnesses and the victims of their criminal activities and shall try
to destroy the evidence which shall further enhance the fear and
terror in the locality and shall prejudicially affect the public order.

8. On the aforesaid facts, respondent no.2 felt satisfied that with a
view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, it is necessary to
pass an order directing the petitioner to be detained under Section
3(2) of the Act.

9. The petitioner was also informed that he has right to challenge his
detention by making representations before the State Government,
the
Advisory
Board
and
the
Central
Government.
The
representations may be submitted through Superintendent of Police
immediately. The petitioner was also informed that his case shall be
referred to the Advisory Board within three weeks and if his
representation is not received within that period, it shall not be
considered. The petitioner was also informed that if he desires a
personal hearing before the Advisory Board, this fact may also be
mentioned in the representation or by a separate representation which
may be submitted through the Superintendent of Jail.

10. The aforesaid order dated 30.11.1997 was approved by the State
Government on 10.12.1997, under Section 3(4) of the Act. The case
of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board. A report about
the detention of the petitioner was submitted to the Central
Government on 11.12.1997 as required under Section 3(5) of the Act
which was received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi, on 13.12.1997. The case of the petitioner was referred to
the Advisory Board heard the petitioner personally on 7.1.1998. The
Advisory Board found that there was sufficient cause to detain the
petitioner. The report of the Advisory Board dated 13.1.1998 was
received by the Stae Government on 14.1.1998. The State
Government after consideration and examination of the entire matter,
confirmed the detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months
by order dated 27.1.1998, under Section 12 of the Act.

11. The petitioner submitted his representation on 11.12.1997 which
was forwarded by the respondent no.2 along with his comments to
the State Government on 17.12.1997 which was received on
18.12.1997. The State Government examined the representation of
the petitioner and rejected the same on 23.12.1997. The
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
26
representation of the petitioner addressed to the Central Government
on 11.12.1997 was sent by the State Government to the Central
Government on 22.12.1997. The Central Government on 26.12.1997
called for some information from the State Government on 27.1.1998
and 29.1.1998 which was received by the Central Government on
2.2.1998. The representation was examined by different authorities
and ultimately rejected by the Minister of State, Home Affairs on
7.2.1998.

12. In this petition counter affidavits have been filed by Rajesh
Kumar Singh, Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Bulandshahr, on behald of
respondent no.1, by Rajnish Gupta, the then District Magistrate,
respondent no.2, by Shri R.S. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Government
of U.P., Home and Confidential Department, on behald of
respondent no.3 and Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, on behalf of respondent no.4.

13. We have heard Shri D.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Miss nahid munees, Additional Government Advocate,
for respondents nos. 1 to 3 and Shri K.N.Pandey, holding brief of
Shri S.N.Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India,
for respondent no.4.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned
order of detention dated 30.11.1997 and the continued detention of
the petitioner under the said order on the following grounds :-

1. The first submission is that in case Crime No. 299/105 of 1997,
under Section 356 I.P.C. which is ground no.3 in the grounds of
detention, petitioner was put to identification on 8.12.1997.
However, the petitioner was not identified by the witnesses as
culprit. Consequently, a final report was submitted by the police
which has been accepted by the Court. Ground no.3 thus became
non-existent.

2. So far as case Crime No.679 of 1997, under Sections 394/411
I.P.C. is concerned, the bail application moved by the petitioner and
the bail order passed thereon were not placed before the detaining
authority and he was not made aware of the correct facts. The
subjective satisfaction of respondent no.2 for passing the impugned
order thus vitiated.

1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
27
3. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was also detained
under the Gangsters Act, in which neither bail application was
pending nor was the bail granted. The petitioner could not be
released from jail so as to indulge in the alleged criminal activities
but this fact was also not placed before the detaining authority and he
was not aware of the prevailing circumstances. The impugned order
of detention thus stood vitiated.

4. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner submitted his
representation on 11.12.1997 which was received by the Central
Government on 22.121997. The Central Government called for a
report from the State Government on 26.12.1997. However, the State
Government could send the required information on 27.1.1998 and
29.1.1998, i.e. after more than a month. Thereafter, the
representation was rejected on 7.2.1998 by the Central Government,
i.e. after 46 days' delay. The time taken between 26.12.1997 and
29.1.1998 has not been explained as to why the required information
could not be sent by the State Government earlier. The continued
detention of the petitioner thus has been rendered illedgal on account
of
the inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the
representation. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases
of Ram Prasad Chaudhary versus State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1987
Allahabad 169) and State of U.P. Versus Kamal Kishore Saini (1988
S.C.C. (Cr.) p.107.

15. Miss Nahid Munees, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other
hand, submitted that the petitioner was involved in case Crime
No.679 of 1997, under Section 394/411 I.P.C. in which the public
money was looted in a daring manner in broad day light from a busy
road in full view of the general public. On chase, the petitioner and
another accused Riyasat were arrested same day with the entire
money. Such occurrence had sufficient potential and reach to disturb
the public order. The validity of the order of detention is not affected
in any manner on the ground that the bail application and the bail
order were not placed before the detaining authority. The fact that
the petitioner had applied for bail is not denied and the awareness of
this fact was sufficient for the detaining authority to pass the order of
detention. Learned counsel has further submitted that the delay has
been duly explained in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed by
Shri R.S. Agarwal and reasons have been mentioned as to why the
information could not be communicated to the Central Government
earlier. It is submitted that in fact the report of the Advisory Board
was received on 14.1.1998 and then only the complete information
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
28
could be forwarded to the Central Government on 27th and 29th of
January, 1998. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has placed reliance
on the following cases in support of her contention.

Biramani versus State of Tamil Nadu (J.T. 1994 (1) S.C.350), Abdul
Sattar Ibrahim Nayak versus Union of India (A.I.R. 1991 S.C.
2261), Jokhu Lal versus Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini and
others (1994 Cr.L.J.3466) DB (Alld.), State of Tamil Nadu versus C.
Subramani (1992 (Suppl.) A.C.C.p.35 (SC) and Smt. Kamla Bai
versus Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and others (J.T.1993 (3) SC
666).

16. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. The first submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in identification held on 8.12.1997 as
the petitioner was not identified by the witnesses, ground no. 3
became non-existent and the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority stands vitiated. It has also been submitted that in any case
the continued detention of the petitioner became illegal as this fact
was not considered by the appropriate government or by the Central
Government. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that on the date the
impugned order was passed, the material on record was sufficient for
having a satisfaction regarding involvement of the petitioner in the
case. The detention order not be held to be illegal on the basis of the
subsequent event about which the detaining authority could not be
aware in any manner. Further, even assuming for the sake of
argument that ground no. 3 bacame non-existent, the order of
detention could not be affected in view of the provisions contained in
Section 5A of the Act which provides that the order of detention
shall be deemed to have been passed separately on each ground. In
such circumstances even if ground no. 3 became non-existent, the
validity of the order on other ground/grounds is not affected in any
way. It can also not be disputed that the cases shown in ground no.3
and grounds nos.1 and 2 are separate and independent incidents.
Thus the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the case
of Ram Prasad Chaudhary relied on by him.

17. So far as the second and third submissions that the petitioner's
bail application and the order passed thereon were not placed before
the detainine authority and the dtaining authority was not informed
that the petitioner has been detained under the Gangsters. Act in
which neither bail application was moved nor bail was granted, it is
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
29
claimed that the facts were not placed before the detaining authority,
thus the impugned order vitiated as the prevailing facts and
circumstances were not taken into account. We are not impressed by
this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact
which was not placed before the detaining authority cannot be made
a ground for attack. If detention of the petitioner under the Gangster
Act was not part of the material placed before the respondent no.2, it
has to be ignored. The Court has to examine whether the order of
preventive detention could be legally passed on the basis of the
material placed before the detaining authority. We have no doubt that
the material which was made available to the detaining authority was
sufficient for passing the order of Veeramai (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in para. 6 as under:

"
From the cat eha of decisions of this Court it
is clear that even in the case of validly be passed if the
authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he
is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on
the basis of the reliable material released on bail and
that on being so released, the detenu would in all
probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities and if the
authority passes an order after recording his
satisfaction the same can not be struck down."

18. In the present case from perusal of the grounds, it is clear that
there was material before the respondent no.2 for all the in gredtents
which required to be satisfied before passing the order of detention
against the person already in detention. In our opinion, the impugned
order of detention does not suffer from any illegality.

19. The last submission is regarding the delay in deciding the
representation of the petitioner. The learned cousel has submitted
that the representation of the petitioner was submitted on 11.12.1997
which was received by the Central Government on 22.12.1997.
However, the representation was decided on 7.2.1998. For this
inordinate and unexplained delay, the continued detention of the
petitioner has been rendered illegal. The learned counsel has
submitted that there is virtually no explanation for the period
26.12.1997 to 29.1.1998 which was taken by the State Government
in supplying the required information to the Central Government in
supplying the required information to the Central Government. In
this connection we have perused the counter affidavits of Bina
Prasad, filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Shri R.S.Agarwal,
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
30
filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. In para 5 of the Counter affidavit
filed by Shri R.S.Agarwal, delay has been tried to be explained in the
following words:

"X X X X X X X X X X X X X It is further stated that
the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide their
telex message dated 26.12.97 asked the opinion of
Advisory Board. The report of Advisory Board
received by the State Government on 14.1.98.
Thereafter the State Govt. on 27.1.98 & 29.1.98
intimated to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi that the Advisory Board found suffcient
cause for the detention of the petitioner......."

20. The counter affidavit filed by Bina Prasad on behalf of
respondent no.4 on the other hand, does not say that the report or the
Advisory Board was called for from the State Government. Para. 6 of
the counter affidavit reads as under:

" The allegation made in the para nos. 32 and
33 of the petition are denied being incorrect.it is stated
that a representation dated 11.12.1997 from the detenu
was received by the Central Government in the
Ministry of Home Affair on 22.12.97 through State
Government of Uttar Pradesh. This representation was
immediately processed for consideration and it was
found that certain vital information required for its
further consideration was needed to be obtained from
the State Government through a crash wireless
message dated 26.12.97"

21. From the aforesaid averments it is clear that there is no material
on record to show that the report of the Advisory board was at all
required by the Central Government. No. material has been filed to
establish this fact in absence of which it appears that the State
Government dealt with the matter very casually and carelessly. This
Court as well as the Apex Court repeatedly in number of judgments
have expressed the view that the State Government and the Central
Government must act swiftly and with reasonable desach while
dealing with these matters which involve the question of liberty of a
person. However, the State Government in the present case has
utterly failed to act swiftly as required under the law. We have no
hesitation in saying that on account of this delay of more than a
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
31
month caused in sending information to the Central Government, the
representation filed by the petitioner could not be decided within
reasonable time which has rendered the continued detention of the
petitioner illegal and he is liable to be released forthwith. Even if it is
accepted that report of the Advisory Board was required from the
State Government, the report was admittedly received on 14.1.1998,
there is no explanation on record as to why it was kept for fifteen
days and not sent to Central Government immediately. The Central
Government could also not postpone the decision on the
representation of the detenu for indefinite period. The Central
Government was bound to discharge its legal obligation promptly on
the basis of the material before it, and non- receipt of any paper from
the State Government could not afford a valid excuse for the long
delay. Thus, judged from any angle, conclusion is same that there
was inordinate delay in deciding the representation.

22. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The
continued detention of the petitioner is found illegal and the
respondents are directed to release him forthwith if his detention is
not required in any other case.

Petition Allowed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '.6(7+-
7+( +21·%/( '.6(7+-

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

&KDQQH\ /DO 2WKHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LUHFWRU 0DODULD 5HVHUFK &HQWUH DQRWKHUV« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL 'LQHVK 'ZLYHGL
6UL 5DNHVK 'ZLYHGL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6KUL .56LQJK
6&

1998
------
December, 16
1998
------
Wali Mohd.
 Vs.
Superintendent,
Distt. Jail,
Bulandshahr
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra,C.J.
R.R.K.
Trivedi,J.