Gujarat High Court
SCR.A/1542/1996 of VARISALI MOHMAD ISRAAIL PATHAN@ MUNNO Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 27 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1542 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT ============================================================ -------------------------------------------------------------- VARISALI MOHMAD ISRAIL PATHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1542 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT
============================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------- VARISALI MOHMAD ISRAIL PATHAN @ MUNNOVersus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AM PAREKH for Petitioners PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT
Date of decision: 27/11/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Shri Pujari, learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent to be heard forthwith.
of rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent to be Petitioner No.1, Varisali Mohmad Israil Pathan, is an undertrial, facing a charge under Section 302 and presently lodged at Sabarmati Jail at Ahmedabad. At present, pursuant to the pass issued, he was permitted to have tiffin facilities until September, 1996. After he lost the pass, he applied for a copy, but, however, the same has not been given to him. Non-issuance of the pass for tiffin facilities has now been made the bone of contention in the present petition.
Shri Pujari, learned APP, says that the fresh pass has not been issued to the petitioner No.1 because there is an apprehension of misuse of the so-called pass which is alleged to have been lost. He, however, says that the pass was valid until September, 1996 and as the petitioner did not apply for issuance of fresh pass, no fresh pass was given to him. It is open to the petitioner No.1 to apply for issuance of fresh pass to the concerned authorities and when such an application is made, the concerned authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with the Rules within 10 days from the date of the application. Rule is accordingly made absolute, as indicated.
****
(apj)