S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) A telegram datd 8-11-2000 sent to the Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court by one Smt. Pankajavalli, the petitioner herein, who is the widow of Late C. K. Dhananjaya, was treated as taken up writ petition by this Court and notice was ordered to the respondents herein. ( 2 ) THE telegram sent by the petitioner reads as follows :"i Smt. Pankajavalli w/o C. K. Dhananjaya now bring to your Lordship notice that my husband was an accused in CC No. 108/99 pending before the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences under ESI Act that the Special Court has remanded my husband for judicial custody to checkup the mental condition of my husband. Further my husband went under coma when he was in the custody. Subsequently the Superintendent, Central Prison has admitted my husband at Osmani General Hospital, Hyderabad and I came to know that my husband passed away in Osmania General Hospital. Prior to that I have received a telegram from Central Prison dated 28-10-2000 stating that they have released my husband on personal bond that my husband was not in a position even to open the eyes. Therefore I request Your Lordship that the E. O. Court after coming to know that my husband went under coma has released suo-motu and the jail authorities have admitted my husband at Osmania General Hospital. I came to know on 4-11-2000 that my husband has passed away and the Osmania General Hospital has declared my husband body as unknown. In the circumstances stated above I pray Your Lordship kind intervention to protect the human values and may direct the concerned Court to admit a writ petition on my behalf for conducting post-mortem examination on the body of my husband that is C. K. Dhananjaya". ( 3 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, sworn to by one A. Siva Prasad, who is the Superintendent (FAC) of Central Prison, Hyderabad. ( 3 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, sworn to by one A. Siva Prasad, who is the Superintendent (FAC) of Central Prison, Hyderabad. The material portion of the said counter affidavit reads as follows :"it is submitted that the husband of the petitioner i. e. , the accused R. P. No. 6503 C. K. Dhananjaya, s/o Narayana Rao, Aged : 50 years, was an accused in CC No. 108/99 u/s. 85 (a) (e) and (g) of E. S. I. Act, 1948 and was remanded to the Central Prison, Hyderabad on 18-1-2000 by the Hon ble Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The Medical Officer of the Central Prison examined the prisoner and advised the authorities to send the prisoner to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, due to his ill-health. The prisoner was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad immediately on 19-10-2000 for necessary medical examination and treatment. The Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad informed the 1st respondent office that the prisoner is under treatment and his condition is serious vide Lr. No. RC/mrd/mc/prisoner/2000, dated 27-10-2000. Basing on the medical report, this office has requested the Hon ble Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad for the release of accused on medical grounds vide the office Lr. No. CPH/rc-III/14849/2000, dated 28-10-2000. The Hon ble Court has ordered for released of the accused forthwith as the accused health condition was serious in nature, vide Hon ble Court Order Dis. No. 1660/spl. J/eoc/2000, dated 28-10-2000. Accordingly the accused was released from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 28-10-2000, as per the orders of the Hon ble Court. A copy of letter addressed to the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad regarding release of accused is also enclosed, for perusal. The relatives of the accused were informed by phonogram and Automex Message and also informed to the Station House Officer, Sadasivapet Police Station, Medak. A telephonic message (information) in person also given to the Station House Officer, Sadasivapet Police Station, which is near to the residence of the accused. It is submitted that the respondents authorities have taken all necessary precautions. There are no valid grounds for grant of any relief. It is prayed that this writ petition may be closed". A telephonic message (information) in person also given to the Station House Officer, Sadasivapet Police Station, which is near to the residence of the accused. It is submitted that the respondents authorities have taken all necessary precautions. There are no valid grounds for grant of any relief. It is prayed that this writ petition may be closed". ( 4 ) THIS Court on 31-1-2001, not being satisfied the manner in which the counter affidavit had been affirmed by Sri A. Siva Prasad, requested the Commissioner of Police, City of Hyderabad to make enquiry in the matter and submit a report to the Court. The Court also requested the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad to submit a report to the Court. Accordingly, both the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Police, City of Hyderabad have filed the reports. We have perused both the reports. From the facts stated in the reports, it is seen that the husband of the petitioner viz. , C. K. Dhananjaya (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was the proprietor of a Hotel called Lalitha Bhavan Hotel in Sadasivapet of Medak District and he was prosecuted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, for non payment of subscription payable under Section 40 of the said Act for the period from 1-4-1987 to 30-9-1993 in C. C. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Red Hills, Hyderabad. When the prosecution proceedings were pending against the accused, on 7-3-1995, a memo was filed on behalf of the accused reporting that the accused was not mentally sound and therefore the accused should be referred to medical examination. On this memo, an order was made on 6-4-1995 referring the accused to medical examination by the Civil Surgeon, Osmania General Hospital (for short "ogh") to ascertain the mental condition of the accused and the accused was directed to appear before the Superintendent, OGH. From 6-4-1995 to 20-10-1995, the case underwent several adjournments awaiting the report from the Superintendent, OGH. On 20-10-1995, a letter was received from the OGH informing that the OGH does not have the facility to examine the accused by competent psychiatrist and requesting the Court to send the accused to Superintendent, Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda. From 6-4-1995 to 20-10-1995, the case underwent several adjournments awaiting the report from the Superintendent, OGH. On 20-10-1995, a letter was received from the OGH informing that the OGH does not have the facility to examine the accused by competent psychiatrist and requesting the Court to send the accused to Superintendent, Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda. Accordingly, the accused was directed to appear before the Superintendent, Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda with a direction to the Superintendent of the said hospital to get the accused examined by a psychiatrist and to submit a report regarding the mental status of the accused to understand proceedings before the Court. The Superintendent was requested to submit the report on or before 25-11-1995. Here again, from 25-11-1995 onwards the case underwent several adjournments awaiting the report from the Superintendent, Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda. From the docket orders of the Court it is seen that on 4-10-1996, the memo filed on 7-3-1995 was closed with the following observation :"as per the docket entry the accused is not appearing in the hospital N. B. W. is issued, memo is closed". We do not find it necessary to narrate the facts relating to the events that have taken place between 4-10-1996 and 18-10-2000 for the purpose of deciding this takenup writ petition. Suffice it to state that the accused was imprisoned in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, as a Remand Prisoner No. 6503 on 18-10-2000. On 20-10-2000, the accused was transferred to OGH for treatment on a complaint made by him that he was not well. While the accused was under treatment, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, sent a report to the Court stating that the deceased is suffering from "caregro Vascular Stroke and Metabolic Encephalopathy" and his condition is serious and requesting the Court to release the accused on bail in terms of Rule 746 (1) of A. P. Prisoner Rules, 1979. Acting on that report, Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences ordered release of the accused forthwith. Thereupon, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, sent a Memo to the Superintendent, OGH, vide Letter No. CPH/rc-III/14896-97, dated 28-10-2000 informing the latter that the accused was released on bail and the guard posted for him was removed on 28-10-2000 and that the accused be treated as a free citizen and be discharged from the hospital as and when his health permits. When the accused was undergoing treatment in OGH, he expired on 3-11-2000 at 10. 30 PM in the AMC Ward of OGH. The dead body of the deceased-accused was shifted to Mortuary of OGH. According to the administration of the OGH, since it was a natural death, it did not request the police to register a case in that regard. However, when the Superintendent of Central Prison was contacted by the OGH administration, he informed the OGH administration that the deceased was released on bail on 28-10-2000 itself and he was no more a prisoner from 28-10-2000 and that he had nothing to do with the matter. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein approached Dr. M. Narayana Reddy, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, on 18-11-2000 and insisted that the post-mortem examination should be conducted over the dead body of her husband. Although the cause of the death of the deceased was due to natural cause, in pursuance of the request of the petitioner, Dr. M. Narayana Reddy referred the incident to the Police, Dabeerpura for registering the case and referred the dead body for post-mortem examination. On receipt of the requisition of Dr. M. Narayana Reddy, a case in Cr. No. 140 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. was registered at Dabeerpura Police Station and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation of that case, the Investigating Officer of Dabeerpura Police Station visited the mortuary of OGH, Hyderabad on 9-11-2000 at 10. 30 Hours and collected the information that the corpse of the deceased was already taken away by the son of the deceased, namely, Sri V. K. Sasidharan on 9-11-2000 in the morning hours itself under a proper acknowledgment. In view of this development, it appears that no further action could be taken by the police of Dabeerpura Police Station under Section 174 Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Home has placed before us a Summary Sheet maintained by the OGH in treating the deceased-accused culminating in his death on 3-11-2000 at 10. 30 P. M. After perusing the Summary Sheet maintained by the OGH and the two reports submitted by the learned Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, we do not find any foul play in the death of the deceased. 30 P. M. After perusing the Summary Sheet maintained by the OGH and the two reports submitted by the learned Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, we do not find any foul play in the death of the deceased. We are satisfied that the deceased-husband of the petitioner died due to natural cause. A careful perusal of the Summary Sheet produced before us also reveals that OGH administration took all possible steps to revive the deceased who was under coma from 28-10-2000 till his death 3-11-2000. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to record our displeasure on the way in which the deceased-accused was dealt with and treated by the administration of OGH and Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda when the accused was referred to them by the Court on earlier occasion. It is relevant to note that the deceased-accused was in Institute of Mental Care, Erragadda from 6-1-1998 to 15-6-1998 and the care of OGH from 3-7-1998 to 11-9-1998. The learned Spl. Judge has reported that several letters had been addressed to both the hospitals for sending the report of the mental state of mind of the accused, but no positive report was sent within the expected time. Further, as could be seen from the facts narrated above, though the accused was referred to the Civil Surgeon, OGH on 6-4-1995 for medical examination, more than six months time was taken by the administration of OGH to report vide letter dated 20-10-1995 that the OGH does not have the facility to examine the accused by a competent psychiatrist. Similarly, though the accused was referred to the Superintendent of the Institute of Mental Care and he was requested to submit a report on or before 25-11-1995, it seems that the Superintendent of Institute of Mental Care did not send the report till 4-10-1996. Reasons for the inordinate delay are not forthcoming from the records placed before us. We are of the considered opinion that in a matter like this where a prisoner suffers from a serious mental illness and is ordered to be treated under a Court s order, it is expected from the concerned hospital authorities to attend to the medicare of the prisoner with promptitude and seriousness and not casually or in a routine manner. We are of the considered opinion that in a matter like this where a prisoner suffers from a serious mental illness and is ordered to be treated under a Court s order, it is expected from the concerned hospital authorities to attend to the medicare of the prisoner with promptitude and seriousness and not casually or in a routine manner. However, we make it very clear that we have not recorded any finding whether the concerned Doctors were at the relevant point of time noticed above were negligent or not, and we leave it open to the concerned authorities to make necessary enquiry to find out whether there was any negligence on the part of the concerned doctors to consume inordinae time in submitting the reports to the Court or in treating the accused during the years 1995-96. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Petition dismissed.