Madras High Court
Paul Nadar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 05.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : .02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.P.(MD)No.23470 of 2024
Paul Nadar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Home Affairs,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Additional Director General of Police / Inspector General of
Prisons,
No.6, Whannels Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating
to the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV)
Department, dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner
namely, Paul Nadar (Male 81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict
Prisoner No.418, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai / 3rd
respondent, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488,
Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.(Ms) No.430,
Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suri,
For Respondents : Mr.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.POORNIMA, J.] This petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024, filed this petition praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner namely, Paul Nadar (Male 81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict Prisoner No.418, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai / 3rd respondent, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.(Ms) No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023.
2. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 449 and 302 IPC in S.C No.93 of 1992 and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the judgment dated 22.02.1994, passed by the District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the judgment, he had filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.207 of 1994, before the High Court of Judicature, Madras and the same was dismissed on 26.09.2001.
3. He was subsequently charged and tried in another Sessions Case in S.C.No.221 of 2004, under sections 341 and 302 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo one-month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC and also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Against the said judgment, he had filed a Criminal Appeal before the Madurai Bench of Madurai High Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 13.03.2007.
4. The petitioner further states that since in the subsequent judgment in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005, dated 13.03.2007, the sentence 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 of life imprisonment was not ordered to run concurrently with earlier conviction in Crl.A.No.207 of 1994 dated 26.09.2001 his son filed H.C.P.No.556 of 2012 sought for the relief of subsequent sentence passed in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005 to run concurrently with previous sentence. This Court by order dated 22.06.2012 directed the life imprisonment awarded in both the cases are ordered to run concurrently.
5. The petitioner has not filed any further appeal before the Apex Court against the judgement in both cases.
6. The petitioner further states that the first respondent had issued G.O.(Ms)No.488 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021. Based on that the 1st respondent has to consider that the petitioner has come under the category of the above Government Order. The petitioner's son sent a representation on 27.02.2024 for the early release of the petitioner, who is a life Convict Prisoner No.418 confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, in the light of the Government Order in G.O(MS)No.488 Home (Prison) Department, dated 15.11.2021. The 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 petitioner is aged about 81 years confined for the last 27 years and suffering from old age ailments.
7. He further stated that the petitioner’s son filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9594 of 2024 before this Court seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent for premature release based on the representation dated 27.02.2024, the Court directed the first respondent to consider the same on merits and by law within eight weeks from the date of copy of the receipt of the order dated 18.4.2024.
8. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated:
27.06.2024 rejecting the representation for the following reasons :
“i. As per the guidelines framed in G.O.(Ms). No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated. 15.11.2021 both the Second Level and State Level Committees have not recommended for premature release of the above Life Convict Prisoner.
ii. The Life Convict Prisoner is not eligible for consideration of premature release as per para 5(II) (i) 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 of G.O. (Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated. 11.08.2023.
iii. The Probation Officer, Nanguneri had not recommended for premature release of the above Life Convict Prisoner for the reasons that Law and Order problems will arise and will be a threat to society if he is released prematurely".
9. Against which the present writ petition has been filed, stating that the impugned order is illegal, the reason assigned for rejection of his representation is unacceptable as the probation officer did not recommend premature release.
10. The report of the Probation Officer stated that a law and order problem would arise. The petitioner ought not to have relied on the report of the Probation Officer. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the first respondent to release him in the light of the Government Order in G.O(MS)No.488 Home (Prison) Department, dated 15.11.2021. 7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that there is a bar to releasing the petitioner, as the life convict prisoner committed a second murder while on bail, the Probation Officer objected to his premature release for the reason that law and order problems would arise.
12. The Advisory Board rejected the representation vide Government Order in G.O(D)No.27 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 09.01.2024 and stated that the order passed by the 1st respondent is well reasoned, writ petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued as per G.O(MS)No.488 dated 15.11.2021 clause 2(b) the convict prisoner had completed 20 years of his actual imprisonment as of 15.09.2021 and he is now aged about 82 years and requested to reconsider the age and length of imprisonment of the convict prisoner and quash the order passed by the first respondent.
8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
14. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
15. The representation was made by one Thiru.Ayyappan, son of the convict prisoner seeking for the premature release of his father, who is a life convict prisoner No.418, by the name Paul Nadar son of Ayyakannu Nadar and confined in Central Prison at Palayamkottai. His representation was rejected vide G.O(D)No.806 dated 27.6.2024 by the 1st respondent by stating that the Probation Officer, Nanguneri not recommended his premature release and that law and order problem would arise and would be a threat to society, if he is released prematurely and further stated the convict is not eligible as per the condition prescribed in paragraph 5(II)(I) of the above Government Order.
16. On careful, perusal of records, it revealed that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment in S.C.No. 93/1992 dated 22.02.1994. He had committed another murder while on bail, in S.C. No. 221/2004 and for the said 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 offence, he was once again convicted for a life sentence on 25.01.2005.This court ordered to run concurrently in both cases vide order dated: 22.6.2012.
17. GO (MS) No.488 dated: 15.11.2021, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made the following announcement on the floor of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly :-
"rpiwf; ifjpfspd; Kd;tpLjiy bjhlu;ghd rl;lk; kw;Wk; tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L> nguwpQu; bgUe;jif mwpQu; mz;zh mtu;fSila 113-tJ gpwe;jehs; tUfpw brg;lk;gu; 15-Mk; njjpad;W tUfpwJ. mg;nghJ> ePz;lfhyk; rpiwthrk; mDgtpj;JtUk; 700 Ma[s; jz;lidf; ifjpfspd; jz;lidia ey;byz;zk; kw;Wk; kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; Fiwj;J> Kd;tpLjiy bra;a ,e;j muR cupa eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;> ,jw;fhd murhiz tpiuapy; btspaplg;gLk;"
18. Based on the above announcement of the Hon’ble Chief Minister; the government decided to frame guidelines for considering the cases of life convict prisoners to release them prematurely under Article 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 161 of the Constitution of India, in commemoration of the 113th birthday of Perarignar Anna subject to the satisfaction of the condition laid down in the above Government Order.
19.The petitioner's son Thiru. Ayyappan sent a representation with a request to release his father, the life prisoner as per GO.MS.No.488 dated 15.11.2021. He had also filed a W.P.(MD) No. 9594 of 2024 with a prayer to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider representation. The Court in its order dated 18.04.2024, issued directions to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.
20. In view of the directions, the Director General of Prison and Correctional Services has sent a proposal for the premature release of the life convict Paul Nadar, in his letter dated 13.05.2024 informed that the life convict prisoner has completed 20 years, six months and six days of the sentence as of 15.09.2021 and informed that a proposal in this regard has been sent to the Government.
11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
21. The petitioner case of premature release under the Advisory Board Scheme has been rejected vide G.O (D) No.806 dated:
27.06.2024, that the Board has not recommended for premature release as he has committed second murder while on bail and the Probation Officer also objected for his release. the probation officer had not recommended his premature release for the reason that law and order problems would arise and will be a threat to society if he is prematurely released and he is not eligible as per the condition prescribed in para 5(II)(i) of the Government Order. Therefore the 1st respondent rejected the representation of the son of the life convict for premature release.
22. On careful Verification of G.O(MS) No. 430 dated 11.08.2023 condition 5(II) prescribed that the accused involved in rape case under section 376 of IPC is not eligible for premature relief, but the convict prisoner is not involved in the above offences, he is not come under the above category.
12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
23. But clause 5(II) c is prescribed that the prisoner convicted for more than two murders is not eligible for premature release. This is also not applicable to the life convict as he has not been involved in more than two murders. As far as first offence is concerned he was convicted for life imprisonment on 22.02.1994, as on 15.09.2021 he had completed 27 years of actual imprisonment, but for the 2 nd offence he was convicted on 25.01.2005 and not completed 20 years of actual imprisonment. Further the Probation Officer not recommended for his release by stating that Law and Order problem would arise, if he is released prematurely.
24. Premature release is a discretionary power vested in the appropriate Government, the Governor and the President under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution of India, respectively.
25. Since on the date of consideration the accused has not 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 completed 20 years of sentence in the subsequent case, the Probation Officer also not recommended for his release. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that now the life convict is aged about 81 years and request to consider his age and the duration in the jail, as per G.O(MS) No.430 dated 11.08.2023, clause IV Ageing provided as follows :
“IV) Ageing The cases of life convict prisoners, whose age is 60 years and above as on 15.09.2023 may be considered for premature release irrespective of the eligibility conditions mentioned above provided they have undergone 20 years of sentence.”
27. Indeed the petitioner is now aged about 82 years. As on date he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment in both the cases and is suffering from age-related disease. As per G.O (MS) No.430 dated 11.08.2023, life convict whose age 60 years and above as of 15.09.2023 may be considered for premature release, irrespective of 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 the eligibility conditions provided they have undergone 20 years of sentence. We noticed that as on date the accused had completed 20 years of sentence in both the cases.
28. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondents and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of premature release of the life convict/petitioner as per the relevant rules/guidelines within a period of two months from the date of receipt of his representation.
29. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
[G.J, J.] [R.P., J.]
.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Additional Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons, No.6, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024 G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
RM W.P.(MD)No.23470 of 2024 .02.2025 17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis