Condition Of Tihar Jail Is Pathetic, Killings Happening In Jail
Condition of Tihar Jail is pathetic, killings happening in jail: Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a strong remark that the condition of Tihar Jail is pathetic, which has become a haven for criminals and murders are taking place there.
The top court directed the Union Home Ministry to take immediate steps on prison reforms.
SC expressed displeasure over the attitude of the Home Ministry in not filing the action plan and report on the steps taken on the suggestions given by Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana.
Delhi Police informed the apex court that it has filed an FIR against 37 people under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR has been filed in connection with collusion with jailed former promoters of real estate company Unitech, Sanjay, and Ajay Chandra.
ED recently uncovered a shocking fact that it has uncovered a ‘secret underground office’ here which was being run by Unitech founder Ramesh Chandra and his sons Sanjay.
Ajay had visited there. Both Sanjay and Ajay, who have been in jail since August 2017, are accused of misappropriating the funds of flat buyers.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said that Asthana’s report has recommended the installation of CCTV cameras, mobile jammers, body scanners, and other security measures in Tihar Jail.
But in compliance with the October 6 order, the home will be placed before it. No report has been maintained by the Ministry.
The bench said an action plan and a report would have to be filed within three weeks by the concerned secretary of the home ministry regarding the steps taken so far on the suggestions given by Asthana.
“Take immediate and prompt action and file a report,” the bench said.
Manager and Managing Director can keep the side of the company in court: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said in a check bounce case that its manager or managing director can represent a company for day-to-day management, which includes going to court in a criminal case.
A bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundaresh said that if a complaint is made in the name of the company, it is necessary that a ‘natural person’ appears in the court as a ‘legal person’.
The bench said, “The observations were made in this context that the company is a legal complaint, whereas a person is in fact a complainant in order to represent the company in the court proceedings.”
Therefore, no magistrate can insist that only the person whose statement was taken on oath can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings.’
“Not only this, if there is no officer initially, the company can rectify this deficiency by sending a competent person at any stage,” the bench said.
