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.

ORDER :

M.S.RAMESH, J.

The petitioner herein is the convict, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 IPC, with a concurrent sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 r/w. 397 IPC, among other offences. Since he had completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, he sought for premature release under G.O.Ms.No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021, as well as other similar Government Orders. His request for premature release was rejected through the impugned Government Order dated 20.05.2024 passed in G.O.(D).No.604, Home (Prison-IV) Department, predominantly on the ground that since he was also convicted for the offence under Section 392 r/w. 397 of IPC, he was ineligible for consideration, as per paragraph 2(A)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.508, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 18.11.2021. The other reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's request for premature release is that he had not completed 14 years of sentence as on 15.09.2023 and hence, he is not eligible for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2023 and also for premature release under the Advisory Board Scheme. The aforesaid impugned Government Order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner has already undergone 7 years of sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 392 r/w. 397 of IPC. The first reason assigned by the Government for treating the prisoner as ineligible for consideration, in view of his conviction under Section 392 r/w. 397 of IPC, would be impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.Veera Bhaarathi' reported in '2019 (18) SCC 71', wherein the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the life convict prisoner who had already undergone the sentence for much lesser offence and had extended benefit of premature release by overruling the objection of the Government. The relevant portions of the judgment in P.Veerabhaarathi's case (supra), which incidentally arose from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, reads as follows:-

......... “7. In other words, the argument on behalf of the appellants is that if a person is to be convicted and sentenced under an ineligible Section/ineligible offence he would not be entitled to the benefit of early/premature release under the Prison Rules.

8. The operation of the Rules in the manner as suggested on behalf of the appellants would result in a highly incongruous situation which the rule making authority could not have been understood to have contemplated or envisaged. Higher offences involving sentence of imprisonment for life or even death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, if not coupled with convictions under the ineligible section(s), would entitle a convict to consideration of his case for early release. But, if a lifer is to be convicted for a much lesser offence, say, offences under Section 224, 498A IPC, etc. and sentenced to small periods of imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that he had completed more than 10 years of custody, he would still not be eligible for early release. Such a situation, in our considered view, cannot be allowed to prevail by understanding the operation of the Rules in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants.

9. The letter/Memo No.14189/W.1/1989 dated 4th November, 1989 of the Inspector General of Prisons, contents of which have been stated above, is a pointer in the above direction and indicates the manner in which the prison authority had understood the provisions of the Rules.

10. Shri Giri’s response in the matter is that the view of the Inspector General of Prisons does not reflect the view of the State and the said view was acted upon in few isolated cases, details of which have been given. The said facts do not detract from the position that the view expressed in t