Judgment 1. While disposing of this writ application on 15.4.1996, this Court had directed the District and Sessions Judge of Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur to make an inquiry respecting the circumstances under which some undertrial prisoners lodged in Sakchi, Gaghidih, Chaibasa and Saraikella Jails had died. Pursuant to that order, the District and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur submitted his report after making thorough inquiry and stated that while in judicial custody during course of treatment in the hospitals, death of ten prisoners had occurred in suspicious circumstances, inasmuch as the doctors who had performed the autopsy, had found that some of them had ante-mortem injuries on their person and death of some of them had occurred due to such injuries. In one case, it had been found that the prisoners had died of mal-nutrition while he was in judicial custody. After receipt of that report by order dated 4.9.1998, Reported in 1998 (2) East Cr C at page 939, this Court had directed respondent No. 5 Inspector-General of Prison, Bihar at Patna, to make inquiry at his end in the light of the observations made in the report of the District and Sessions Judge, and take suitable action including criminal prosecution if Jail authorities are found responsible for those deaths. 2. The said respondent has submitted his report dated 11.2.1999 which is at flag- M. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the respondent No. 5 is one sided, biased and calculated to protect the subordinate officers of his department. Respondent No. 5 has gone to the extent of making counter allegation in his report against the doctors who had held post-mortem stating that those doctors had demanded illegal gratification from the concerned Jail authorities and when not obliged, they submitted malicious autopsy report. 3. On consideration of the report at flag-M, we find that the respondent No. 5 has not strictly complied with the order of this Court passed on 4.9.1998. This Court had directed respondent No. 5 to make inquiry and take appropriate action, if any of the Jail authorities were found responsible for death of those prisoners. Instead of holding the inquiry himself, respondent No. 5 got the matter enquired by one P.S. Munda, Assistant I.G. of Prison-II and has based his report on the findings of the said Assistant I.G. of Prison. 4. Instead of holding the inquiry himself, respondent No. 5 got the matter enquired by one P.S. Munda, Assistant I.G. of Prison-II and has based his report on the findings of the said Assistant I.G. of Prison. 4. In our considered opinion, the conduct of respondent No. 5 in getting the matter enquired by an Asstt. Inspector General of Prisons, instead of conducting enquries himself can hardly be treated compliance of the order of this Court. Hence, we direct respondent No. 5 to make a thorough inquiry in the matter himself in the context of the observation of the District and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in his report dated 16.12.1997; and take necessary action in the light of the direction given in the order dated 4.9.1998; and submit compliance report to this Court within a period of four months. 5. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Government Advocate for communicating to respondent No. 5 forthwith.