Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.Ramesh, Sunder Mohan, JJ.
P.Kaliammal - Petitioner
Versus
State represented by The Additional Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.10487 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.12745 of 2020
Decided On : 04-07-2024
Premature Release - Life Convict - G.O.(Ms) No.64, 2018; Article 21, Constitution of India - The court interpreted the guidelines for premature release, emphasizing that prior punishments for stale offences cannot be used to deny eligibility, thus reinforcing the principle against double jeopardy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought premature release for her son, a life convict, who had completed 20 years of imprisonment. The government rejected the request citing unsatisfactory prison behavior based on past offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the premature release was unjustified as it relied on stale offences for which the convict had already been punished, violating the principle of double jeopardy.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for premature release based on past prison behaviour constituted double jeopardy and was in violation of the convict's rights under Article 21.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that using stale offences to deny premature release, after the convict had already been punished for those offences, amounts to double jeopardy, which is impermissible under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the life convict was ordered to be released prematurely.
ORDER :
M.S.RAMESH, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.663, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.05.2020 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No.64, dated 01.02.2018 and release theh petitioner's son Sakthivel, Life Convict CT.No.7189, S/o Palanisamy, who is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66, prematurely.
Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the mother of Sakthivel, S/o Palanisamy, who is the life convict prisoner No.7189, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 148 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, which were ordered to run concurrently, through the judgement passed in S.C.No.303/2004, dated 23.06.2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal preferred by the life convict before this Court in C.A.No.573 of 2006 was dismissed on 24.01.2007. So also, the further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Crl.M.P.No.11464 of 2011, dated 23.09.2011.
3. On the ground that the life convict had already undergone sentence for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, the petitioner had made a representation on 13.02.2018 to the Government, seeking for premature release of her son, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018. Consequently, she had also sought for the same prayer before this Court in H.C.P.No.1320 of 2018 and by an order dated 25.01.2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had ordered for the prisoner's premature release under G.O.(Ms) No.64, dated 01.02.2018, on the ground that he had already undergone the sentence for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act.
4. When the Government had challenged this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.166 of 2020, the order of premature release granted by this Court was quashed. However, it was observed therein that since the petitioner's son had undergone imprisonment for about 16 years at that point of time, he may be entitled for the benefit of remission under the Remission Rules of the State of Tamil Nadu and thereby, directed the Government to consider any application filed by the prisoner in this regard, within 3 months.
5. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2018, which was pending before the Government, was considered and rejected, through the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.663, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.05.2020, in the following manner:-
The court established that a prisoner cannot be denied benefits based on past punishments for offenses already served, as it violates the principle of double jeopardy.
Premature release of life convicts requires completion of 20 years of imprisonment and consideration of law and order implications, as per relevant government guidelines.
Premature release for life convicts can be granted based on age and time served but must consider Probation Officer's recommendations and eligibility criteria.
The court established that factual inaccuracies in the rejection of premature release applications undermine the decision, especially when supported by good conduct evidence.
A life convict who has served a sentence for lesser offences is eligible for premature release despite concurrent convictions under ineligible sections, as per Supreme Court precedent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
