Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

There is no cross examination of this witness.

42. PW-34 was another Warder in the Central Prison, Bengaluru. The relevant portion of his evidence reads as under:

"As per jail manual, Prisoners are classified as A, B and C class Prisoners. Prisoners are classified as A class Prisoners as per the orders of the Court and generally the political Prisoners are treated as 'A' class Prisoners. ... In the month of November 2001, A.K.Telgi was brought to Central Prison, Bengaluru in fake stamp papers case. ... A.K.Telgi was treated as C class Prisoner. ... General Prisoners are classified as C class Prisoners. As per the Jail manual, all general Prisoners i.e., C class Prisoners are provided with cloth, bed, plate, TV, etc.,. C class Prisoners are kept in separate barracks. About 40-50 Prisoners are kept in a barrack. At the time of admission, A.K.Telgi was kept in a room of Prison Hospital for security reason. ... The door and windows of the room where security Prisoner is kept should have iron bars with free view to observe the movements and the presence of the Prisoner inside the room. Security Prisoners cannot be kept in a room having wooden door because free view is not possible. ... Once while checking the room of A.K.Telgi in the regular course of my duty, I found a mobile on the bed of A.K.Telgi, took the same and gave it to Assistant Superintendent - Sri.Nanjappa informing that it was found in the room of A.K.Telgi. .... Assistant Superintendent Nanjappa did not take any action in respect of the mobile found in the room of A.K.Telgi. ... None of my superior officers have asked me any time to report that no objectionable articles were found in the room of A.K.Telgi. ... I did not ask the head Warder or Warders on duty to the said room to write the same in the charge report. Nor I made any note of the same in writing. ... The room of A.K.Telgi had ceiling fan. ... Jammers were kept outside the room of A.K.Telgi. I do not know whether jammers were in working condition."

53. PW-146 was the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Home Department, who has spoken about the sanction accorded for the prosecution of accused Nos.32 and 33 as per Ex.P578.

54. What emanates from the evidence of above witnesses is that accused No.1 was lodged in Central Prison as an under-trial Prisoner. He was a "C" class prisoner and was not classified as a high security prisoner. The D.I.G., Prisons who has been examined as PW.116 has unequivocally stated that he did not issue any order classifying accused No.1 as 'high security prisoner'. Therefore, as "C" class prisoner, accused No.1 was entitled to be kept in a common barrack and was required to share the common accommodation along with 40 to 50 other prisoners. Being an ordinary prisoner, the visitors to accused No.1 were supposed to be restricted and he was not entitled to any additional facilities. But, it has transpired in evidence that contrary to rules, accused No.1 was not only provided with the facilities of 'A' class prisoner, but various other arrangements and contrivances were provided to him so as to facilitate him to carry on his illegal activities from the precincts of the Central Prison.

55. The argument of the learned counsel that accused No.1 was a 'high security prisoner' and therefore, additional facilities were provided to accused No.1 cannot be countenanced for the reason that PW-116, D.I.G., himself has stated that accused No.1 was not an 'A' class prisoner. Further, PW-146, the sanctioning authority has also reiterated that accused No.1 was not entitled to any facilities, inspite of which, accused Nos.32 and 33 have granted him facilities contrary to the Prison Rules which necessitated PW-146 to accord sanction for prosecution of these accused. This evidence goes against accused Nos.32 and 33.