SCR.A/677/2006 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 677 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ===================================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================================== NAVIN VIJAYBHAI PARMAR - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ===================================================================== Appearance : THROUGH JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KT DAVE, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondents ===================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 04/05/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.K.T.Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Present is the application received through jail wherein the petitioner – convict has complained about an incident which took place on 03.03.2006 when Superintendent of Jail Mr.Bhabhor was taking round. SCR.A/677/2006 2/2 JUDGMENT 3. Mr.Jadeja, Jail Superintendent is present in person and informs the Court, through Mr.K.T.Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that he has personally looked into the matter and is doing the needful. He further submitted that there was some exchange of hot words and the petitioner – convict did utter the words that, 'my brother is an advocate and I will see to it that the application is filed against you in Gujarat High Court'. The petitioner – convict who was earlier working in waiving department of jail was transferred to yard. The officer – Superintendent of Jail assures the Court that he will look into the matter personally and will see that the needful is done. 4. In view of that, no further action/orders are required on this application, which mainly prays that stay be granted against the jail transfer of the petitioner – convict. The officer informs the Court that there is no move of transfer of the petitioner – convict at present. In view of the above, the application is disposed of. Rule is discharged. (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole