IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
B. Salma Mahajabeen – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 1306 of 2021
Decided on : 11-03-2021
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Executive Power - Vexed question which puts the jail authorities in a quandary every time they deal with a leave petition submitted by a convict who is convicted under laws which fall under the Executive Power of the Union and also to which the Executive Power of the State extends, is attempted to be given a definite answer - This will be the most appropriate case, since the convict has been convicted and sentenced under laws referable –
Finding of the Court:
Where the offender is sentenced to two different counts, one under a law referable to List I and the other referable to Entry I of List III, then Central as well as the State Government will be the appropriate governments. Section 435(2) Cr.P.C., takes care of such situations by directing that an order of suspension, remission or commutation passed by a State Government shall not have effect unless a similar order is passed by the Central Government
Accused has been convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the IPC all of which are referable to Entry I of List III of Schedule VII. The accused has also been convicted and sentenced under Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Appropriate Government for grant of remission or suspension of sentence for these offences is the State Government. The accused has also been convicted and sentenced under Sections 3,4 (b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 3 and 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 - Executive power in respect of offences under these two enactments is directly traceable to Entry 5 read with Entry 93 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution with the result that the Central Government would be the appropriate Government for grant of suspension of sentence or remission in respect of these offences - The case is, therefore, squarely covered by Section 435(2) Cr.P.C.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant parole for 30 days without escort to my husband namely; Mohammed Ali, S/o.Khaja Mohideen, aged about 49 years, Life Convict No.10727, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)
1. A vexed question which puts the jail authorities in a quandary every time they deal with a leave petition submitted by a convict who is convicted under laws which fall under the Executive Power of the Union and also to which the Executive Power of the State extends, is attempted to be given a definite answer. This will be the most appropriate case, since the convict has been convicted and sentenced under laws referable to List I, List II and List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”).
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 25.01.2021, this Court passed the following Order and this Order captures the purpose for which the present Writ Petition was filed before this Court.
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant emergency leave to the husband of the petitioner, who is a life convict, on the ground that the marriage of their son is going to be held on 31.01.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was some urgency in the present case and hence a writ petition has been directly filed before this Court without giving any representation to the 4th respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is seeking for an emergency leave under Rule 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, in order to enable her husband, who is a life convict to conduct the marriage of his son, which is fixed to be held on 31.01.2021.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as and when a representation is received in this regard, the same will be considered in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that such a leave cannot be granted without the permission of the State Government. For this purpose, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the circular issued by the ADGP dated 24.07.2018. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a larger issue that requires consideration in the present case.
4. Taking into consideration the limited period available, since the marriage is proposed to be conducted on 31.01.2021, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the 4th respondent along with the relevant documents and the 4th respondent shall consider the application in line with Rule 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and grant leave for 15 days with minimum Escort, subject to the usual conditions that can be imposed by the 4th respondent. The convict shall be released from the Prison at 10.00 a.m. on 29.01.2021 and he shall return back to the Prison on 12.02.2021 at 5.p.m. This will be without prejudice to the main contention raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on granting leave in cases of this nature wherein, a Central enactment is involved and the convict has also been punished for the same.
5. Post this case for further hearing on 09.02.2021 at 2.15 p.m . In the meantime, a counter shall be filed along with all the relevant documents.
3. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the convict has surrendered before the jail authorities on the date and time fixed by this Court.
4. Considering the importance of the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, this Court requested the assistance of Mr. B.A. Sujay Prasanna, Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Mr. Sharath Chandran and Mr. M. Mohammad Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor to assist this Court as amicus. They readily expressed their willingness
G.V Ramaniah v. Superintendent of Central Jail
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1955 SC 549
State of Maharashtra v. Lalji Rajshi Shah reported in AIR 2000 SC 937
State v. Yesu reported in 2011 (5) CTC 353
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon [(1971) 2 SCC 779 : AIR 1972 SC 1061
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.