Delhi High Court
Gulam Mustafa Qureshi vs State (N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 18 February, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 494/2010
%
Date of Decision: 18th February, 2010
# GULAM MUSTAFA QURESHI ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Adv.
versus
$ STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI .....Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for grant of
permission to the petitioner to make a telephone call to
Pakistan on phone numbers 0092685576576 or
00923006725343.
2. The petitioner is a Pakistani National, who is facing trial
under Official Secret Act. According to him, he received a
message from his home town informing that his mother was
sick and had a heart attack. He also came to know that his
wife had expired and there is nobody to look after his ailing
mother. The request of the petitioner for making a telephone
call to his mother in Pakistan was rejected by the Trial Court
vide order dated 26.11.2009.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision of this Court in Crl. M.C. 728/2009 decided on
06.04.2009 whereby this Court permitted the petitioner to
make a telephone call to his mother, who at that time was
also stated to be sick and having suffered a heart attack, with
the directions that the Jail Superintendent shall record the
phone number, names of the relative who answers the phone
and time of the call in the concerned register. It was further
directed that every time the inmate of the jail seeks
permission to make a telephone call, such request should
first be made to the Jail Superintendent who will pass a
speaking order if such request is refused and communicate
such decision to the prisoner.
4. It was further directed by this Court that whenever a
request is made to the Jail Superintendent for permission to
make a call to the country of his region he will enter the
details of the called number, the duration etc. and a speaker
phone which a caller ID can be installed to ensure that the
person called is the same in respect of whom the request is
made by the prisoner.
5. In the above referred order, this Court relied upon the
provisions of clause 41 of Delhi Prisons (Prisoners' Welfare
Fund, Appeals, Petitions, Interview and Communication)
Rules 1988 (Rules') which provides that "unconvicted
criminal and civil prisoners shall be granted facilities for
writing two letters and having two interviews each week with
their relatives or friends.
6. In the present case, there is no averment in the petition
that the petitioner had, at any point of time, applied to the
Jail Superintendent seeking permission to make a telephone
call to his mother in Pakistan. A perusal of the order of the
trial Court dated 26.11.2009 indicates that the petitioner
contended before the Trial Court that his application to make
a telephone call was declined vide order dated 25.08.2009.
No copy of the order dated 25.08.2009 has, however, been
placed on record by the petitioner. As noted earlier, in terms
of the decision of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 728/2009 dated
06.04.2009, the Jail Superintendent is required to pass a
speaking order if the request of an under trial prisoner to
make a telephone call to a relative is refused and he is also
required to communicate that decision to the prisoner.
7. In the present case, not only the petitioner has failed to
make an averment in the petition regarding seeking
permission of the Jail Superintendent to make a telephone
call to his mother in Pakastan, no copy of the order alleged to
have been passed by the Jail Superintendent on 25.08.2009
has been filed by him. As noted earlier, the Jail
Superintendent is required to communicate his decision to
the prisoner. Hence, if any order was passed by the Jail
Superintendent on 25.08.2009, as claimed before the trial
Court, the order would have been communicated to him in
terms of the order dated 06.04.2009 and there would be no
difficulty in the petitioner filing the copy of that order with the
petition. Unless the copy of the order is placed before the
Court, it is not possible for this Court to examine the reasons
if any act of jail Superintendent for refusing the request of the
under Trial prisoners for making a telephone call to his native
place and take a view on the reasons given by him.
8. It would also be pertinent to note here, that the
petitioner has not placed on record any documents such as a
letter to show that his mother is sick and his wife had died as
claimed by him. The petitioner has vaguely stated that he
received message regarding the sickness of his mother and
with regard to the heart attack suffered by her. He, however,
has not stated as to who had delivered the message to him,
when and in what manner. I also notice that the ground
taken by the petitioner for seeking permission to make a
telephone call to his mother in Crl. M.C. 728/2009 was that
his mother was seriously will and having suffered a heart
attack. Same is the ground given by him in paragraph 4 of
the present petition seeking permission to make a telephone
call.
9. For the reasons given above the petition hereby
dismissed. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to apply
afresh to the Jail Superintendent for permission to make a
telephone call to his mother in Pakistan. If the request is
made, it shall be duly considered by the Jail Superintendent
and if he decides to decline the request he will pass a
speaking order in this regard in terms of the decision of this
Court dated 06.04.2009 in Crl. M.C. No. 728/2009 and the
order passed by him will be promptly communicated to the
petitioner.
10. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. One copy of this order be sent to the petitioner,
through Jail Superintendent.
(V.K.JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRFUARY 18, 2010
Ak
