Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
RAMESH – Appellant
Versus
State Rep.by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Ramesh, filed a revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, which dismissed his petition to be classified as a "Special Class Prisoner" (!) .
The petitioner was arrested for offenses under various sections, including those related to trafficking and juvenile justice, and was detained under a specific Tamil Nadu Act (!) .
The petitioner had initially sought classification as a "Special Class Prisoner" on the grounds of his income tax status, asserting that his educational qualification was not necessary for such classification (!) (!) .
The trial court had rejected the petition, interpreting the relevant rule as requiring the prisoner to possess a special status, education, and habitual superior living, which the appellate court found to be a restrictive interpretation (!) (!) .
The appellate court clarified that the rule allows classification based on any one of the three criteria—special status, education, or habit of life—meaning that a prisoner need only satisfy one condition to be classified as a "Special Class Prisoner" (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that being an income tax assessee and paying taxes indicates a habit of living suited to a superior mode, which could suffice for classification, even if the prisoner is uneducated (!) .
The appellate court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to reconsider the petition, allowing classification if it finds the petitioner is accustomed to a superior mode of living based on any of the specified reasons (!) .
The overall decision was to allow the criminal revision case, emphasizing the correct interpretation of Rule 804 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and ensuring the petitioner’s right to be considered for classification accordingly (!) .
The order was issued on 08-01-2026, with directions to the concerned authorities to act as per the clarified interpretation (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting related documents?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ramesh, S/o. Kumarasamy ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, W-35, Koyambedu, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Puzhal Prison-II, Tiruvallur - 600 066.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. read with Sec.442 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1717 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and set aside the order dated 03.12.2025.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The revision challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1717 of 2025 dated 03.12.2025 dismissing the petition to recommend the District Magistrate to classify the petitioner as a “Special Class Prisoner”.
2.The petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2025 for the offences under Sec.96, 143(4) of B.N.S.S. and Sec.81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. It
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
