ORDER: The writ petitioner, who is undergoing sentence in Central Prison, Madurai, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Letter No. 49837/C5/2001-1, dated 9.4.2001 of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to grant one month parole to the petitioner or pass such or other orders as this Court deems fit.

2. The petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated for alleged offence under Sec.8(c) read with Sec. 21 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and arrested on 16.11.1998. The petitioner has already been prosecuted and convicted to undergo sentence of rigourous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a further fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo two years rigourous imprisonment. It is also stated that since 18.11.1998, the date of arrest, he is in continuous detention.

3. Since the petitioner’s mother is bed ridden and is unable to move, he applied for parole for a period of one month to see his ailing old parents. The request for parole was rejected on 9.4.2001. The order of rejection proceeds as if the petitioner is not eligible for being let on parole. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The respondents resisted the writ petition contending that the petitioner is not eligible to be granted parole. A counter has been filed by the respondents.

5. As seen from the counter affidavit, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Sec. 8(c) read with Sec. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh on 16.11.1998 by the Special District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in C.S.No. 19 of 1997. As on 20.3.2002, the petitioner has undergone three years and four months of the sentence. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court against the sentence imposed on him by the Special District and Sessions Court has since been dismissed by this Court and no further appeal has been preferred.

6. On 19.12.2000, the petitioner applied for parole for a period of one month, which was examined and rejected by the respondents by letter dated 9.4.2000 on the ground that he is not eligible for parole as per Rule 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu (Suspension and Sentence) Rules, 1982. Since the petitioner had not completed three years of sentence from the date of initial imprisonment, the respondents took the view that he is not eligible for parole. In the counter affidavit, the respondents refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 S.C.C. 437, where the Apex Court held that Sec. 32-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act does not affect the powers of the authority to grant parole to the prisoners convicted under the said Act.

7. It is contended that as per Rule 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu (Suspension of Sentence) Rules, 1982, no prisoner shall be granted ordinary leave unless he has been sentenced by a Court in this State to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life for an offence against any law other than the law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union Government extends and he has completed three years of imprisonment from the date of initial imprisonment. According to Rule 2(4) of the said rules, sentence means a sentence as finally fixed on appeal or revision or otherwise and includes and aggregate of more sentence than one. It is contended that the sentence has not become final since the appeal preferred is pending. The parole petition has been rejected as the petitioner is not eligible for parole in terms of Rule 2(4) read with Rule 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu (Suspension of Sentence) Rules, 1982. It is further contended that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 S.C.C. 437, the respondents have considered the application of the petitioner according to the rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document