STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

HC Quashes mobile case against Nalini

Granting relief to Nalini Sriharan, serving a life term in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed a criminal case against her for possession of a mobile phone, filed by the jail superintendent of Vellore Special Prison for women.

Published: 12th September 2013 09:07 AM  |   Last Updated: 12th September 2013 09:07 AM   |  A+A-

Granting relief to Nalini Sriharan, serving a life term in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed a criminal case against her for possession of a mobile phone, filed by the jail superintendent of Vellore Special Prison for women.

Justice P Devadass held that in the said case, the Superintendent had already used powers under Rule 301 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and relegated her from Class A Cell to Class B Cell in the prison.

Having done so, the official does not have the jurisdiction to refer the case again to the Judicial Magistrate, for such a scenario would lead to “double jeopardy” for the accused.

According to the case made out by the police, Nalini was found in possession of a mobile phone in her cell on April 2010.

When the prison authorities tried to seize the phone, she allegedly prevented them from discharging their duties.

Following this, a case was filed at the Bagayam Police Station under sections 353, 186 and 201 of IPC.

The Jail Superintendent later conducted an inquiry and awarded punishment relegating her from her Class A cell to Class B. This proceedi­ng was challenged in the High Court and was subsequently quashed. 

The Judicial Magistrate of Vellore, however, took cognisance of the case and the trial began. Nalini then approa­ched the High Court again to quash the case.

Delivering the verdict, the court cited Prison Rules and several apex court judgment­s, which state that once the Jail Superinten­dent chooses to exercise powers under the rules and awards punishment for an offence, the prisoner cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence by a Magistrate.

“Either one of the modes alone can be opted by the Superintendent and not both,” the order said, quashing the case.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp