Legal cases with fixed pricing, standardized processes, and firm timelines
Latur’s session court decision of allowing the under-trial inmates of Latur Jail of being served home food was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The appeal against the Latur Session Court was dismissed by the Justice A M Dhavale of Aurangabad bench.
The order of the Additional Session Judge was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor RV Dasalkar. He submitted that under the provisions of the Prison Act, 1984 home food was not allowed as the accused is charged with serious offences such as murder, kidnapping and gang-rape. He further submitted that the decision with regard to food can only be taken by the jail authorities.
It was noted by the HC that the lower court while passing the order has taken into the consideration the health of the under trial and the fact that he had already undergone two angioplasties and has been a sufferer of breathlessness and spinal problems.
The Court observed that the notion of law is as such that the accused is presumed to innocent until proven guilty and as such the seriousness of the allegations cannot be a ground for denying home food.
The contention in the petition that allowing the home food will be violative of sections 31 and 32 of the Prison Act was not accepted by the Session Court as there are precedents of High Court and Supreme Court allowing the home food.
Thus, the court concluded that the Sessions judge was within his jurisdiction to permit home food after being satisfied about the under-trial’s health condition.