Convicted Prisoner No vs The Superintendent
2010 Latest Caselaw 151 Bom

                                  1




                                                                      
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                              
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

               Criminal Writ Petition No.605 of 2010

     Amit son of Gajanan Gandhi,




                                             
     aged about 27 years,
     occupation   prisoner,
     resident of Koradi,
     Nagpur, confined at Central
     Jail, Nagpur




                               
     [Convicted Prisoner No.
     C-5876].                                  ....            Petitioner.
                    ig          Versus
                  
     1.   The Superintendent,
          Central Jail,
          Nagpur.

     2.   Deputy Inspector General
      


          of Prisons, Nagpur.                  ....          Respondents.
   



                                *****





     Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Adv., for the petitioner.

     Mr.   T.A.   Mirza,    Addl.       Public         Prosecutor             for
     respondents.

     Ms. Tajwar Khan, Adv., for RSTM Nagpur University.





                              *****



                                 CORAM    :     A.H. JOSHI AND
                                                A.R. JOSHI,JJ.

Date : 16th November, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent.

2. Petitioner is a convict for commission of offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and is

undergoing sentence of Life Imprisonment. He is in jail

since July, 1998.

3. Petitioner claims to have taken admission to Dr.

B.R.A. Law College, situated at Nirmal Colony, Nara Road,

Nagpur, for the Academic Year 2010-11. He has placed on th record copy of Receipt dated 25 August, 2010 showing his

admission to LL.B. [Three-Year Course] [First Semester]. He

claims that he may be allowed to appear for examination by

releasing him on furlough, or by granting police escort.

4. Today, learned Adv., for the petitioner has

tendered an affidavit of father of the petitioner placing on

record copy of Admission Card for the examination, the

details of fee deposited by him and copy of Time Table. It

is asserted that as per the Time Table, the schedule of

examination is as follows:-

--------------------------------------------------

Day & Date Subject

---------------------------------------------------

          Thursday                        Contract-1.




                                                 
          18-11-2010

          Tuesday
          23-11-2010                      Law of Torts.




                                                
          Monday                          Constitutional Law              1.
          29-11-2010

          Friday
          3-12-2010                       Hindu Law [Family Law-1].




                                  
          Tuesday
          7-12-2010                       Legal Language.

          Tuesday
          14-12-2010
                       ig                 Law of Crimes.
                     
          Saturday
          18-12-2010                Computer.

--------------------------------------------------

5. The petitioner prays that he may be granted the

relief prayed for.

6. As it is seen that petitioner is in jail since

1998, it is improbable that petitioner may have attended the

instructions. The study of LL.B. degree is of instructions

and practicals, and it cannot be pursued externally.

7. This Court, therefore, requested learned Adv. Ms.

Tajwar Khan, who represented the University, to take

instructions and inform the Court whether the prisoner, who

has not attended the instructions as he was in jail, and

does not fulfill attendance, could appear for examination?

8. Upon this, learned Adv. Ms. Tajwar Khan has taken

instructions and informed the Court as follows:-

The LL.B. Course [Three- year or Five-Year] is a full-time course for which a student has to

attend and take instructions in the college, undergo certain practicals, such as Court attendance, Moot Courts, Client Counselling

etc., and upon the Principal s certifying the required attendance, his application for

examination can be processed.

9. In the present case, as, admittedly, the petitioner

is in jail, it is clear that he has not attended the college

and has not completed the practical work. Therefore, he is

not entitled to appear for examination.

10. In view of what is obvious and clear, an inmate of

prison may be eligible to appear for any University

examination, subject to the rules and regulations where his

attendance in the college and for practicals is not

required. If the rules permit pursuing a course externally,

i.e., without attendance and certification thereof, the jail

inmate may be entitled to appear for the examination.

11. As is seen from the facts of the case, LL.B.,

Degree Course is a full-time instructions and practicals-

based course. Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to

appear for the examination.

12. This Court ought not grant relief of allowing a

prisoner to appear for the LL.B. Examination, as it cannot

be legally done. We are, therefore, satisfied that the

petitioner is praying for a relief which is not in

accordance with law.

13.

We, therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge

the Rule.

            JUDGE                                                JUDGE
   



                                    -0-0-0-0-



     |hedau|