Durga Devi vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Chennai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
Durga Devi – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 12122 of 2021 & W.M.P. No. 12892 of 2021
Decided on : 16-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.P. Sathyamoorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Muniyapparaj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 392 to 402 - Seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus – Quash – Convict - Writ petition has been preferred calling into question legality and validity of proceedings of third respondent in and by which, the petitioner’s request for grant of days leave for her husband has been turned down and for a direction to the respondents to grant days leave to without police escort based on the petitioner’s representation petitioner’s husband is a convict prisoner who is undergoing life sentence in the Central Prison - Petitioner addressed a representation to prison authorities seeking days leave without escort for under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 on the ground that he should make arrangements for mobilizing funds for paying the college fees of their daughter who is said to be pursuing her III year B.D.S. course - Finding no response she preferred in which a Division Bench of this Court by order directed the Government to dispose of the petitioner’s representation on merits - Held, At this juncture it may be relevant to state here that the Government, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order in W.P considered case of convict prisoner and by G.O Home (Prison-V) Department has rejected petitioner’s request for ordinary leave for convict prisoner on ground that he would not be entitled to ordinary leave under Rule 21(b) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 as he has been convicted of offence - Petition Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

P.N. Prakash, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings no.7691/Tha.Ku.2/2021 dated 13.05.2021 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant 30 days leave to the petitioner’s husband, viz., R. Palanisamy, Life Convict No.16133, detained at the Central Prison, Cuddalore, without police escort, on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2021.)

1. This writ petition has been preferred calling into question the legality and validity of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 13.05.2021, in and by which, the petitioner’s request for grant of 30 days leave for her husband Palanisamy, has been turned down and for a direction to the respondents to grant 30 days leave to Palanisamy without police escort, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2021.

2. The petitioner’s husband Palanisamy is a convict prisoner (CT No.16133), who is undergoing life sentence in the Central Prison, Cuddalore. The petitioner addressed a representation dated 01.05.2021 to the prison authorities seeking 30 days leave, without escort, for Palanisamy, under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, on the ground that he should make arrangements for mobilizing funds for paying the college fees of their daughter who is said to be pursuing her III year B.D.S. course. Finding no response, she preferred W.P.No.11910 of 2021, in which, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13.05.2021, directed the Government to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2021 on merits. However, in the meanwhile, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore, has considered the petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2021 and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2021, rejected the same, aggrieved by which, this writ petition has been preferred.

3. Heard Mr. A.P. Sathyamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore, has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 09.07.2021, wherein, it is stated that Palanisamy was convicted and sentenced by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2005 in S.C. No.303 of 2004 in Anaimalai P.S. Cr.No.159 of 2002 as under:

Provision under which convicted	Sentence
S.302 IPC	Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
S.148 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
S.324 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
S.3 of the Explosive Substances Act	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred thereagainst in Crl.A.No.573 of 2005 was dismissed by the High Court on 24.01.2007.

5. Apart from the above, the convict prisoner was convicted and sentenced, as under, by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore in S.C. No.23 of 2005 in Anaimalai P.S.Cr. No.287 of 2004 vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2005:

Provision under which convicted	Sentence
S.392 read with S.397 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months
S.506(I) IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months

6. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentences in S.C.No.23 of 2005, the convict prisoner filed Crl.A.No.327 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 07.11.2013.

7. While so, the convict prisoner, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., preferred an origi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document