Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Seshasayee, J.
R.Vivek —Petitioner
versus
State & Ors. —Respondents
W.P. [MD] No. 2777 of 2019
Decided on 7.2.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N. Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. S. Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Headnote:Parole—Revision Manual—Rule 6—Parole could be granted on limited grounds—Parole for convict undergoing sentence under Prevention of corruption Act to attend the engagement ceremony of his son—Sometime one needs to expand certain expressions in law to give meaning to life—Parole granted
Held: Life of law is not logic to experience and life itself is having full of emotions and sentiments. This Court seeks no reason why the father should attend an engagement ceremony of his son and this is an opportunity for him to visit the family in his life.
Sometime one needs to expand certain expressions in law to give the meaning to life of citizens. Hence, rather than administrating law in terms of letter, this Court is inclined to give Parole to the petitioner’s father. The third respondent is directed to give Parole to the petitioner’s father on 09.02.2019 and 10.02.2019. He is also directed to follow other procedures that are required to be followed while granting Parole. (Paras 5 & 6)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to let his father namely K.Raja Chidambaram son of Krishnasamy on Parole from 08.02.2019 to 12.02.2019.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father namely K.Raja Chidambaram, is undergoing one year imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he prayed for Parole to his father.
3.The ground for seeking Parole is that the petitioner, who is the son of the convict is getting engagement on 10.02.2019.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that as per the Prison Manual Rule 6 is concerned, Parole could be granted only on limitation grounds and attending engagement of his son is not one of the ground.
5.Life of law is not logic to experience and life itself is having full of emotions and sentiments. This Court seeks no reason why the father should attend an engagement ceremony of his son and this is an opportunity for him to visit the family in his life.
6. Sometime one needs to expand certain expressions in law to give the meaning to life of citizens. Hence, rather than administrating law in terms of letter, this Court is inclined to give Parole to the petitioner’s father. The third respondent is directed to give Parole to the petitioner’s father on 09.02.2019 and 10.02.2019. He is also directed to follow other procedures that are required to be followed while granting Parole.
7. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Petition allowed.
