SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 1865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
J. Mumtaj - Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Home & Ors. - Respondents
H.C.P. No. 2600 of 2016
Decided On : 23-08-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Manoharan
For the Respondents: Mr. V.M.R. Rajentran

The power of remission and premature release rests with the appropriate Government, as per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Premature Release of Life Convict - IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Tamil Nadu Property Act - Article 161 of the Constitution of India - G.O.(Ms).No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 - G.O.(D).No.746, dated 18.08.2016

Fact of the Case:

The mother of a life convict filed a petition seeking premature release of the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The detenu had completed 10 years of actual imprisonment and was eligible for premature release under a government order. The respondents denied premature release citing law and order concerns and enmity against the prisoner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detenu was ineligible for premature release as he was sentenced under various sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and Tamil Nadu Property Act. The court also noted that the power of remission and premature release rests with the appropriate Government.

Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the detenu for premature release, the exercise of power by the authorities, and the consideration of reports from the Probation Officer and Tahsildar.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate Government has the power to consider and grant remission and premature release. The court also emphasized that the power of remission exclusively rests with the State executive.

Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed by the court.

ORDER :

P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

The mother of the life convict prisoner No.18819, Aslam, S/o. Jainulabuthin has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue orders in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus by calling for the records and quash the G.O.(D).No.746, dated 18.08.2016 and directing the respondents to release the detenu prematurely by considering the G.O.(Ms).No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008.

2. It is averred in the petition that the detenu Aslam is a life convict prisoner and he completed 10 years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008. On the occasion of 100th Birth Centenary of Perarignar Anna on 15.09.2008, the Tamil Nadu State Government passed an order by invoking the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India to release the life convicts who have completed 7 years of actual imprisonment on 15.09.2008. The detenu Aslam is fully eligible under the said G.O. for premature release. The detenu was neither put on notice nor given opportunity and the respondents exercised their power in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. Without following the guidelines of the said G.O, denied premature release of the detenu.

3. The petitioner already filed a writ petition in H.C.P.No.14 of 2013 before this Court. This Court while disposing the said writ petition directed the detenu to submit a fresh representation. Accordingly, the detenu gave a representation. But the same was rejected by the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.746, dated 18.08.2016, stating that the premature release would endanger the life of the detenu and would create law and order problem as there is enmity against the prisoner. The respondents without considering the report of the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South passed the impugned order which is irrational and not based on any evidence. The respondents have detained the detenu based on religious grounds.

4. The respondents in their counter averred that the life convict prisoner No.18819, Aslam, S/o. Jainulabuthin was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for two months under Section 120(B) of IPC; RI for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for two months under Section 148 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for one month under Section 341 of IPC, 1860 in Sessions Case No.456 of 2000 on the file of the Fast Tract Court II, Madurai on 02.05.2003. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Crl.A.No.953 of 2003 filed before this Court and further appeal in Crl.A.No.26 of 2007 before the Supreme Court failed.

5. The life convict prisoner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 120(B) (1) r/w Sections 109, 111, 114, 148, 149, 212, 302, 307, 353, 449, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860, Section 3, 4(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3 r/w Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 3(i) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; RI for three years under Section 153 (a) (1) of IPC, 1860 and RI for seven years under Section 307 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently in Sessions Case No.2 of 2000 on the file of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore on 24.10.2007. On his appeal, the above conviction and sentences were set aside by this Court in Crl.A.No.1111 of 2007, dated 18.12.2009.

6. The prisoner had completed 18 years 5 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment as on 30.11.2006. On the occasion of birth centenary celebration of Perarignar Anna, the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 ordered to release the life convicts who had completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top