Two applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of a criminal case against accused No. 1 and accused No. 16. The case involves allegations including assault, obstruction of duty, and instigation of other prisoners, stemming from an altercation with police officers during transfer to Aurangabad Central Jail. The defense argues the incident falls under the Prisons Act, while the prosecution asserts it falls under the Indian Penal Code. The court, after simultaneous hearings, decides not to quash the case, citing sufficient evidence against the accused.

1. Background:

• Two accused individuals seek to quash a criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Simultaneous Hearings:

• Both matters are heard simultaneously at the parties' request.

3. Allegations:

• The accused, including ex-Chief Minister and public representatives, were involved in an altercation with police officers during transfer to Aurangabad Central Jail.

4. Temporary Prison Setup:

• Incident occurred within a temporary prison set up at the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) and Government Rest House in Dharmabad.

5. Events Leading to Altercation:

• Accused refused to board buses for transfer, citing demands for air-conditioned buses, and allegedly instigated other prisoners, resulting in injuries to police personnel.

6. Defense Arguments:

• Defense argues incident falls under the Prisons Act and challenges legality of the FIR and jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

7. Prosecution Arguments:

• Prosecution maintains offenses fall under the Indian Penal Code and cite witness statements and injury certificates as evidence.

8. Court Decision:

• Court decides not to quash the case, citing sufficient evidence implicating the accused. They uphold the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and validity of the FIR.

Prison Offences and Punishments (Sections 45-49):

• Explanation of acts declared as prison offences under Section 45.
• Authority of the Superintendent of the Prison to impose punishments under Section 48.

Interpretation of Relevant Sections:

• Analysis of whether the offenses fall under prison offences defined in Section 45.
• Examination of Section 52 regarding trial of prisoners for heinous offenses.

Arguments and Counterarguments:

• Mr. Luthara's submission on the authority of the Superintendent to impose punishments.
• Court's rebuttal emphasizing absence of prison offenses in the FIR or charge-sheet.

Role of Punishments Rules (Section 59 and Rule 25):

• Discussion on interpretation of Rule 25 and its application in cases involving both prison offenses and IPC offenses.
• Analysis of Rule 24 regarding punishment by a magistrate for prison offenses.

Conclusion :

• Rejection of Mr. Luthara's arguments based on interpretation of legal provisions.
• Extension of interim relief until a specified date.
• Court dismisses applications and provides interim relief until a future date.