Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 361 (RAJ)

Anil Panjwani v. State of Rajasthan

1982-09-14

DWARKA PRASAD, G.M.LODHA

body1982
JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the accused applicant and Shri R.K. Saxena, Inspector General of Prisons, on the question of maltreatment alleged to have been given to accused Anil Panjwani by the Jail authorities. The Inspector General of Prisons has assured this Court that proper enquiry would be made in respect of the allegations of maltreatment and further that no harm shall be caused to the body of the accused Anil Panjwani during the period he is kept in custody. Shri Anil Panjwani submitted another application today stating that he was given a beating in the Ajmer jail. It was ordered that inquiry in respect thereof shall also be made by the Inspector General of Prisons or by some officer whom he may appoint for the purpose and he assured that the accused-applicant shall not be ill-treated and shall be treated in accordance with the relevant rules." 2. After that various applications have been made by the accused Anil Panjwani. It appears that the enquiry which was directed to be made the petitioner from Jail Custody. 1982, decided on 14-9-1982. as per the order of this Court dated 26-4-80 has not been made so far, because in spite of series of applications and orders no enquiry report is forthcoming. 3. On 30-7-82 the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed the order in which a direction was given that the Inspector General of Prisons should appear in this Court on 10-8-82 and should intimate whether he has complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 26-4-80 in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 318/79 Anil Panjwani v. State of Rajasthan . 4. Mr. Ramanju Sharma, the Inspector General of Prisons is present in person. He submits that there is no such record available in his office by which the enquiry was required to be conducted or has been conducted. He had therefore, gone to the Home Department of the Rajasthan Secretariat to enquire whether there is any order for conducting an enquiry, or whether any enquiry has been conducted in pursuance of the order dated 26-4-80. 5. He further submits that there is no letter available with him making any complaint requiring any enquiry and it is not known for what enquiry should be conducted. 5. He further submits that there is no letter available with him making any complaint requiring any enquiry and it is not known for what enquiry should be conducted. He further submits that he would now obtain a copy from the Court as to what was the complaint and then will conduct the enquiry. 6. The above facts which have now been revealed exhibit a chaotic state of affairs and the order of this court dated 26-4-80 was treated as scrap paper. It is a matter of great concern that after more than two years of the order, the Inspector General of Prisons and the entire department now wants to ascertain as to what was the complaint and what was the order dated 26-4-80. The order was passed in the presence of the Inspector-General of Prisons and an assurance was given that proper enquiry would be made. Further a direction was given by the Court that enquiry about giving of beating to Anil Panjwani in Ajmer Jail for which he has filed an application should be made either by the Inspector General of prisons or by some officer. It is most surprising and shocking that even though this order was passed in the presence of the Public prosecutor and the Inspector General of Prisons, on 26-4-80 now in August, 1982 the Inspector General of Prisons would be obtaining a copy of the application in order to ascertain as to what were the allegations for which enquiry is to be conducted. 7. It is, therefore, directed that the Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan should conduct an enquiry to ascertain as to who is responsible for this lapse and disobedience of the order of this Court. The mere fact that the Inspector General of Prisons has changed would not absolve the entire liability of the officers and the department to implement and comply with the order of this Court dated 26-4-80. 8. The report of the Home-Commissioner should be submitted within a period of one month from today.Order Accordingly. *******