Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Superintendent of Jail, Latur, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur on Exh. 113 in Sessions Case No. 78/14. The impugned order permitted the respondent, Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan, an undertrial prisoner facing serious charges of murder, kidnapping for ransom, and gangrape, to receive home food while in custody. The State argued that the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons Act, 1984 do not provide for permission for home food and that the decision should be taken by the jail authorities, who were not heard before the order was passed. The learned APP submitted that the accused was facing serious charges and that the jail authorities had filed an application for recalling the order, which was rejected on 16.01.2016. The High Court noted that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the seriousness of allegations cannot be a ground to deny facilities available to all undertrial prisoners unless there are special reasons. The Sessions Judge had observed that there were medical papers on record showing that the petitioner had undergone two angioplasties and was suffering from breathlessness and spinal problems, and he was satisfied about the existence of health problems. The High Court referred to the Division Bench judgment of the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court in Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 Cri. L.J. 4312, which held that the Magistrate is empowered to grant the facility of home food to an undertrial prisoner while in custody, as food is necessary for survival, and such power is implicit in the power to order detention. The court also held that it is not only the power but the duty of the court to ascertain the availability of basic needs to the person in custody. The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion properly based on the medical condition of the accused and that the order was not illegal or perverse. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the Sessions Judge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Undertrial Prisoner - Home Food - Power of Magistrate - The Magistrate has the inherent power to grant the facility of home food to an undertrial prisoner while in custody, as food is necessary for survival, and such power is implicit in the power to order detention. The provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons Act, 1984 do not prohibit the court from granting such permission, and the court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case, including the medical condition of the prisoner. (Paras 7-8) B) Prisons Act, 1984 - Sections 31 & 32 - Home Food - Not Prohibited - The provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons Act, 1984 do not provide for permission for home food, but they do not bar the court from granting such permission. The decision to permit home food is within the discretion of the court, and the jail authorities are not the sole authority to decide. (Paras 3, 6-7) C) Medical Grounds - Home Food - Angioplasty - Breathlessness - Spinal Problems - The Sessions Judge granted permission for home food based on medical papers showing that the undertrial prisoner had undergone two angioplasties and was suffering from breathlessness and spinal problems. The court was satisfied about the existence of health problems, which justified the grant of home food. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge had the authority to permit home food to an undertrial prisoner facing serious charges, and whether such order was valid under the Prisons Act, 1984.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur granting permission for home food to the respondent undertrial prisoner.
Law Points
- Power of Magistrate to permit home food to undertrial prisoner is implicit in the power to order detention
- subject to conditions and facts of each case
- Sections 31 & 32 of Prisons Act
- 1984 do not bar such permission
- Medical condition of prisoner is a relevant consideration
