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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam, JJ.
Benazir Banu – Petitioner
Versus
The State represented by its, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.19780 of 2024
Decided On : 16-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.S.Sadhana
For the Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

IMPORTANT POINT
A convict who has previously absconded and failed to comply with conditions set for leave is ineligible for further ordinary leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Leave for Convict - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking 30 days of ordinary leave for a convict, citing his previous absconding and failure to pay escort charges as grounds for ineligibility under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for 30 days of ordinary leave for her husband, Alaudeen, a convict serving life imprisonment for serious offenses, citing family medical and livelihood needs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the convict was ineligible for leave due to prior absconding and non-payment of escort charges, which constituted a breach of his undertaking.

Issues: Whether the convict is eligible for ordinary leave despite previous infractions and non-compliance with escort payment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the convict's prior absconding and failure to comply with the escort charge payment rendered him ineligible for ordinary leave as per the relevant rules.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Alaudeen S/o. Samsudeen aged about 34 years bearing Convict No. 5630 confined at Central Prison, Puzhal.

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenue, Alaudeen S/o. Samsudeen aged about 34 years bearing Convict No. 5630 confined at Central Prison, Puzhal. who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 IPC, 392 r/w 397 IPC, 465 r/w 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment in S.C.No.694 of 2005 dated 17.07.2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband/convict prisoner has undergone 06 years 08 months and 23 days of imprisonment, including the remand set off period and she seeks 30 days of ordinary leave to her husband/convict prisoner to make arrangements for her son's medical expenses and for the livelihood of their family.

3. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose by stating that the convict prisoner is not eligible to avail ordinary leave for the following reasons:

    (i) Earlier, the convict prisoner was granted 3 days court leave with police escort from 25.10.2023 to 27.10.2023 as per the order dated 16.10.2023 in W.P.No.30132 of 2023. After availing the said leave, the prisoner declined to pay the escort charges of Rs.1,31,893/-. When this was brought to the notice this Court, this Court reduced the escort charge amount to Rs.20,000/- and the amount was not paid till date.

(ii) When the convict prisoner was released on 06 days emergency leave without police escort on 28.04.2018, he was supposed to return on 05.05.2018 but he failed to return and had absconded. Later, the said prisoner was re-captured on 13.10.2021.

Thus, the convict prisoner has committed an offence under Section 224 of IPC and he is not eligible for ordinary leave as per Rule No.21(d)(5) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

4. The objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor seems to be acceptable. The convict prisoner had breached the undertaking given by him and thus, he is not eligible to avail ordinary leave. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider this petition and consequently, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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