Madras High Court
Devaki vs The Superintendent Of Central Prison on 23 June, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.9574 of 2014 Devaki ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in No.10360/jf.4/2014 dated 07.06.2014 and to quash the same illegal and to direct the respondent to grant the 20 days leave to the petitioner's husband Ramachandran, life convict in Central Prison, Trichy to make an arrangement and participate in the marriage of his son by name Raghupathy Raja in pursuance of rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh ^For Respondent ... Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Advocate :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in No.10360/jf.4/2014 dated 07.06.2014 and to quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondent to grant the 20 days leave to the petitioner's husband Ramachandran, life convict in Central Prison, Trichy to make an arrangement for and participate in the marriage of his son by name Raghupathy Raja in pursuance of rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
2. In the affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner is the wife of one Ramachandran. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was implicated as an accused by the Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station in connection with a case in Crime No.635 of 1998 for an offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed as against the husband of the petitioner. Subsequently, on completion of trial, the petitioner's husband was convicted in S.C.No.97 of 1999 along with 10 persons and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Additional District Judge, Sivagangai by judgment dated 28.05.2002. As against the judgment dated 28.05.2002, appeal was preferred before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.823 of 2002. This Court confirmed the life imprisonment passed by the Court below vide order dated 24.02.2011. Further appeal was filed before Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is still pending. While so, arrangements were made for the marriage of the petitioner son Raghupathy Raja, who has completed the Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering with one Jegatha @ Mathuravalli on 29.06.2014 at Muthu Mahal, Sivagangai. The presence of the petitioner's husband is very much necessary to fulfil the customary practice of the marriage festival. Hence, the petitioner made an application to the respondent on 04.06.2014, along with sufficient proof to substantiate the petitioner's son's marriage, requesting to grant ordinary leave to her husband for a period of 20 days. However, the respondent denied the same by passing an order dated 07.06.2014. In the said order, the respondent has stated that leave cannot be granted since appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in a similar matter in W.P.(MD) No.1135 of 2013 dated 03.02.2012, between K.Kaliyammal v. 1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai and three others, this Court has passed an elaborate order, directing the first respondent therein to grant emergency leave to the petitioner's son therein. The learned counsel also produced a copy of the said order.
5. The relevant portion in the above said order is as follows:
"5.The grant of parole by giving ordinary and emergency leave is governed by Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. Rule 5 deals with two kinds of leave viz., emergency leave and ordinary leave. Rule 6 provides that emergency leave may be granted for attending death or serious illness of father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, full brother or full sister or the wedding of son, daughter, full brother or full sister of the convict.
6.The first respondent places reliance on the definition clause as contained in Rule 2 (4), which defines "sentence". It is true that the sentence was defined as a sentence as finally fixed on appeal or revision or otherwise and includes an aggregate of more sentence than one. The Rules nowhere provide that pendency of an appeal would take away the jurisdiction of jail authorities to consider the application for emergency leave. The criminal appeal pending before the Supreme Court pertains to the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court. Therefore, mere pendency of an appeal before the Apex Court would not take away the authority of jail officials to consider the application submitted by the convict for parole. In case, such a contention is accepted, it would make the provision regarding grant of parole meaningless. In case, the life convict satisfies the ingredients of the Rules, regarding grant of emergency leave, such an application cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the appeal is pending before the supreme Court. Therefore, I am not in a position to agree with the submission made on behalf of the first respondent."
6. The reasoning given in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Hence, I am of the opinion that pending of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for ordinary leave for the petitioner's husband. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the respondent in No.10360/jf.4/2014 dated 07.06.2014 is set aside and the respondent is directed to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband by name Ramachandran, for a period of 10 days from 27.06.2014 4.00 p.m. to 07.07.2014 4.00 p.m. He should report before the first respondent by 4.00 p.m. on 07.07.2014. The respondent is directed to provide armed escort and take all necessary steps to ensure that the life convict returns after the expiry of ordinary leave. The respondent is permitted to impose reasonable conditions taking into account the security and return of the life convict to the jail after expiry of ordinary leave. No costs.
To:
The Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.