Madras High Court
P.Murugan vs State Rep. By The on 26 March, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL.R.C.(MD)No.119 of 2015 P.Murugan .. Petitioner .. Vs .. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.214/2003) .. Respondent Criminal revision petition filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order, dated 19.06.2013, passed in Cr.M.P.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. !For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar ^For respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor :ORDER
The petitioner is a life convict, who suffered the conviction and punishment for the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC, vide judgment dated 07.09.2004, made in S.C.No.39 of 2004 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. The appeal preferred by him in C.A.(MD).No.46 of 2007 on the file of this Court has also ended in dismissal and thereby confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.
2.The petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, under Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual for 'A' Class facility in prison stating among other things that by education and habit of living, he is eligible to 'A' Class facility in prison. The said petition came to be dismissed on 19.06.2013 stating among other things that only subsequent to his punishment, he became qualified and it cannot be a criteria to offer him 'A' Class status in prison and challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
3.Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Rules 217, 225 & 226 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual and would submit that once the petitioner got educational qualification, the High Court or Subordinate Courts can make initial recommendation for classification of prisoners in Class 'A' to the Government and the Government shall confirm or review the recommendation made by the Courts for classification of prisoners in Class 'A' facility and until such time, the prisoner shall be tentatively treated as belonging to the Class recommended and in the light of the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled to 'A' Class facility in prison.
4.Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that it is for the concerned Court to make initial recommendation and till the recommendation is confirmed, the concerned individual, who make such an application, shall be treated as belonging to the Class recommended and prays for appropriate orders.
5.This Court, after considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the relevant Rules, is of the view that the impugned order passed by the lower Court warrants interference. It is relevant to extract Rule 226(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual hereunder;
"Rule No.226: Classification of Courts- (1) The High Court, Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges, Assistant Sessions Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Metropolitan Magistrates, Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Judicial First-Class Magistrates (the last two through the Chief Judicial Magistrate) in cases tried by them originally, or in any other cases the District Magistrate, shall make the initial recommendation for classification of prisoners in Class A to the Government by whom these recommendations shall be confirmed or reviewed. Prisoners recommended by Courts for classification in Class A shall be tentatively treated as belonging to the class recommended till the orders of Government confirming or reviewing the recommendations are received."
6.It is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained degree through the Tamil Nadu Open University and he is a graduate and in the light of the said fact, the Court shall make initial recommendation for his classification in Class A to the Government and till the Government confirms the said decision or review the said decision, he is entitled to be tentatively treated as Class 'A' prisoner.
7.In the result, this criminal revision is allowed and the order, dated 19.06.2013, is set aside and the petition is once again remanded to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, who shall, taking into consideration the Rules 217, 225 and 226 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II, pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
26.03.2015 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No gcg To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.
2.Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
gcg CRL.R.C.(MD)No.119 of 2015 26.03.2015