https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279511 Carrying a mobile phone and charger into jail premises was treated as potentially falling within the Prisons Act, 1894 because the prohibition extends beyond mere introduction of forbidden articles to communication or attempted communication with a prisoner contrary to jail rules. A petition under inherent powers sought quashing of the FIR and later proceedings, but the court found no exceptional ground for interference, particularly after charges had already been framed. On the facts stated, the alleged concealment of the articles supported the view that they were intended to facilitate communication with a prisoner, so the FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:07:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279511 Carrying a mobile phone and charger into jail premises was treated as potentially falling within the Prisons Act, 1894 because the prohibition extends beyond mere introduction of forbidden articles to communication or attempted communication with a prisoner contrary to jail rules. A petition under inherent powers sought quashing of the FIR and later proceedings, but the court found no exceptional ground for interference, particularly after charges had already been framed. On the facts stated, the alleged concealment of the articles supported the view that they were intended to facilitate communication with a prisoner, so the FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279511