https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195346 The Supreme Court held that the appellant did not commit an offence under Sections 42 and 45 of the Prisons Act as the communication attempted did not violate prison rules. The Court found that the appellant, not being a prisoner at the time, could not have committed a prison offence under Section 45. It was also noted that mobile phones were not listed as prohibited articles at the time of the incident, rendering the communication not an offence under Section 42. The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and proceedings against the appellant due to the absence of prima facie evidence of an offence. 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 Supreme Court held that the appellant did not commit an offence under Sections 42 and 45 of the Prisons Act as the communication attempted did not violate prison rules. The Court found that the appellant, not being a prisoner at the time, could not have committed a prison offence under Section 45. It was also noted that mobile phones were not listed as prohibited articles at the time of the incident, rendering the communication not an offence under Section 42. The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and proceedings against the appellant due to the absence of prima facie evidence of an offence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195346