https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195346 The alleged conduct did not attract Sections 42 or 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 because the appellant was a visitor, not a prisoner, and the Punjab Jail Manual did not treat a mobile phone or charger as a prohibited article at the relevant time. Section 52-A, which later brought mobile phones and component parts within the penal field, was notified only in 2011 and could not be applied retrospectively to a 2009 . On that basis, the FIR did not disclose a prima facie offence and was liable to be quashed under the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process. en-us Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:02:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195346 The alleged conduct did not attract Sections 42 or 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 because the appellant was a visitor, not a prisoner, and the Punjab Jail Manual did not treat a mobile phone or charger as a prohibited article at the relevant time. Section 52-A, which later brought mobile phones and component parts within the penal field, was notified only in 2011 and could not be applied retrospectively to a 2009 . On that basis, the FIR did not disclose a prima facie offence and was liable to be quashed under the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195346