JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petition dated 23.07.2019 submitted to first respondent for premature release of the petitioners husband K. Moorthy extending the benefit of the G.O.M.S. No. 64, Home (Prison), dated 01.02.2018, life convict No. 5414 detained in the Central Jail, Madurai and undergoing the life sentence in S.C. No. 34 of 1999, on the file of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.

1. This writ petition is filed by the wife of the life convict seeking premature release of her husband by extending the benefits of G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018.

2. The facts of the case is that the life convict was tried for the charges under Sections 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. (five counts) and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act in S.C. No. 34 of 1999, on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and was sentenced to undergo the following imprisonments:

3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband is entitled for premature release as per G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, wherein the State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has taken a policy decision for the release of prisoners on their good conduct in the light of the birthday centenary celebration of the Former Chief Minister Dr. M.G. Ramachandran. The said Government Order has laid down the category of prisoners entitled for premature release and the pre-requisite conditions to consider their case. In the case on hand, the Government has not considered the case of the convict herein for the reason that he has not satisfied the requisite conditions for the premature release as laid down in G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018.

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that the life convict was found guilty for the major offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (5 counts) and slapped with imprisonment of life for each count to run consecutively, besides for the offence under Section 3 of Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which is a Central Act, he was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court, however, the period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently and the said order was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 16.07.2019 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 571-573 of 2010.

5. Though G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, enables the life convicts, who have completed ten years of actual imprisonment as on 25.02.2018, to seek premature release, as a pre-condition, the prisoners should exhibit satisfactory behaviour and they should not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under the Central Acts.

6. Apart from the embargo imposed in G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, it is also stated in the counter affidavit that the convict herein had suffered prison punishment i.e. forfeiture of the prison privilege of interview for three months twice as per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 302 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 for possessing cell-phone inside the prison illegally.

7. On the facts of the case, the State has taken note of the brutal