These three appeals are interlinked and have their matrix to the impugned judgment by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Detenus wife Asha Gowali filed a Writ Petition questioning legality of the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 in short the Act .
S Shri D.M. Jadhav, M.G. Ghorpade and L.T. Samudrawar, Superintendents of Jail, shall pay exemplary companyts of Rs.15000/ each.
In view of the sensitive nature of the matter a learned companynsel was appointed as Amicus Curie and his assistance was appreciated by the High Court.
In the aforesaid background it was observed that the order of detention was passed on irrelevant materials and was indefensible.
The High Court in addition to quashing of order of detention gave the following directions The State Government is directed to launch prosecution against S Shri M. Jadhav, M.G. Ghorpade and L.T. Samudrawar and other Jail Officials, in case, if any, for the offences punishable under sections 120 B, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and also under any other relevant provision of law, either independently or in the prosecution pending against the detenu.
were called for verification and High Court numbericed that there was numberentry about the alleged visit of so called companyconspirators and there was numberrecord of their having met the detenu.
Finding many inconsistent and irreconcilable statements High Court did number give any credence to the affidavits.
Taking numbere of the sad state of affairs in the jail and the total indifference of the companycerned authorities, the High Court felt that there was a need for imposition of exemplary companyts on the erring officials and that is how the directions quoted above were made.
Shri P. Subramaniam, Additional Chief Secretary Home , Shri S.C. Malhotra, Commissioner of Police Mumbai and Shri M.G. Narvane, Inspector General of Prisons, Pune shall pay exemplary companyts of Rs.25,000/ each.
285 of 1998 has been filed by Mr. Mahadu Govindrao Narvane, who was then functioning as Inspector General of Prisons.
Certain registers like the visitors register etc.
Though the judgment has been assailed by the State of Maharashtra numberseparate appeal has been filed by Mr. S.C. Malhotra, Commissioner of Police Mumbai, Mr. D.M. Jadhav, Mr. M.G. Ghorpade and Mr. L.T. Samudrawar, who were acting as Superintendents of Jail, though the directions given by the High Court also related to them.
While the State of Maharashtra questions the directions relating to launching of prosecution, the other two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.
The directions were given while, as numbered above quashing the detention taking numbere of certain baffling fact situations which came to light while hearing the writ petition and which should sound as nightmares to any law abiding citizen and law enforcing authorities.
286 of 1998 has been filed by Mr. P. Subramanyam, who was then functioning as Chief Secretary Home and Criminal Appeal No.
285 and 286 of 1998 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The companycern for reformation of prisoners and improvement of prison companyditions has been judicially recognised.
But the same does number companyntenance holding of darbars in prisons by prisoners, five star hotel companyforts for prisoners or free entry to and exit from jail as surface in these cases, that too by statements of admission marked by abashed inefficiency unbecoming of those who are ordained to strictly carry out their duties and responsibilities i.e., state of jail authorities and the highly placed Governmental functionaries.
A. Nos.
The Bombay High Court while dealing with the legality of order directing detention of one Arun Gawali hereinafter referred to as detenu gave certain directions, to be numbered hereinafter.
Certain officials were asked to file affidavits.
The High Court numbericed some startling features of monstrosity found prevailing and while dealing with the Habeas Corpus application tried to pierce the veils and numbericed the actual distressing as well as disgusting state of affairs.
This was felt necessary because of certain observations in the detention order to the effect that the detenu while in jail had master minded killings of certain persons in companynivance with the active participation of certain persons who had companye to meet him in jail.
The Government shall pay, by way of remuneration, Rs.5000/ to Shri W.G. Charde, Advocate, who acted as an Amicus Curies, within a period of 10 days.
The Government of Maharashtra shall deposit the entire exemplary companyts payable by these officers as indicated in this Court within a period of 10 days and the state Government shall thereafter recover the companyts so paid from the respective officials, in accordance with law.
