IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan, JJ
Rathinam – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep.by,its Home Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of ordinary leave due to incomplete 3-year period. (Para 2) |
| 2. emergency leave available under rule 6 for urgent needs. (Para 3 , 4) |
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)
We have heard Mr.P.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
2. The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s representation seeking ordinary leave for 21 days is that the convict prisoner Venkadesan S/o. Chellappan, confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, convicted on 10.01.2025 has not completed the period of 3 years, per the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (in short ‘Rules’).
3. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would accede to the position that the convict prisoner may seek leave under Rule 6 of the Rules, being emergency leave. This is recorded.
4. In light of the aforesaid, the challenge to order dated 06.03.2026 declining the leave of 21 days without escort is rejected. The petitioner/convict is at liberty to seek emergency leave, should they so desire, which will be considered by the authorities in accordance with the extant Rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.