Bala vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Prison on 30 October, 2023

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Bala vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Prison on 30 October, 2023

This Writ Petition has been filed on 11th October, 2023 by the wife of the prison inmate praying to call for the records and quash the undated impugned order signed on 12.09.2023 bearing reference No.13970/Ta.Ku. 2/2023 passed by the second respondent [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'] rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of 20 days ordinary leave to her husband namely Komban @ Kombaiya, S/o.Isakki [C.P.No.6350], Life Convict Prisoner who is languishing in Madurai Central Jail for the past 4 years and to direct the second respondent to grant 20 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband (the prison inmate).

2. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of this Writ Petition, wherein, she has stated that her husband was convicted and sentenced on ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 30.04.2008 in Sessions Case No.376 of 1998 for the offence under Section 341 of 'The Indian Penal Code' [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'] to undergo one month simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the petitioner's husband and other accused prisoners preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.255 of 2008. Pending the said appeal, suspension of sentence and bail were ordered and the petitioner's husband was released on bail. The said appeal was dismissed on 09.04.2013. The petitioner's husband returned to prison on 15.01.2019 for serving the remaining period of sentence and has been incarcerated for the past 4 years. During the incarceration, the prison inmate had been released twice on emergency leave and after the leave period, he had returned back to the prison without any deviation.

4. The petitioner further submitted that the prison inmate's father is suffering from Diabetes, Hypertension, CAHD, Cholecystits and other ailments and the prison inmate's mother is also unwell due to old age and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 therefore, the presence of the prison inmate is necessary to mobilize finance for the purpose of medical expenses of the prison inmate's father. The petitioner sent a representation to the respondents on 01.09.2023 seeking for grant of ordinary leave to her husband.

5. Since the respondents failed to consider the request of the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.22160 of 2023 before this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant 30 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2023. In the mean time, the second respondent passed the undated impugned order signed on 12.09.2023 bearing reference No. 13970/Ta.Ku.2/2023 rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2023 by citing Rule 35 of the 'Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'TNSS Rules']. Hence, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition with a prayer for Certiorarified Mandamus.

6. Issue notice to the respondents.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

7. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice for all the respondents.

8. Considering the nature of the petition and on consent of both sides, this Writ Petition was heard out in the admission board itself.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband is incarcerated for the past 4 years; that the respondents did not consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2023 made for ordinary leave in a correct perspective; that the second respondent has no power and authority to reject the request of the petitioner for ordinary leave to her husband; that the particulars of the pending cases mentioned in the impugned order are incorrect; that the case in Crime No.14/2020 under Section 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of 'The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985' [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'] is pending before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.293 of 2020 and the said case is posted for furnishing copies to the accused (the prison inmate); that the another case registered under Section 379 of IPC is pending in summon stage before the Judicial ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi in C.C.No.49 of 2021 and is posted on 01.12.2023; that the prison inmate was convicted and sentenced in Crime No.148/1997 and is currently serving the sentence. In the impugned order, the case registered in Crime No.148/1997 is shown as if it is pending, which is incorrect.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second respondent has not applied his mind and not properly considered the petitioner's representation and passed the impugned order mechanically. Accordingly, he has prayed to allow this Writ Petition and grant 20 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband (the prison inmate).

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the case in Crime No.14/2020 under Section 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is pending before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.293 of 2020 and another case in C.C.No.49 of 2021 is pending against the prison inmate before the Judicial Magistrate, Chernmahadevi and that in view of the pending cases stated supra, the second respondent has rejected the leave application of ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 the petitioner under Rule 35 of TNSS Rules and passed the impugned order. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

12. This Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the case files.

13. The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether Rule 35 of TNSS Rules is an impediment for granting ordinary leave to the prison inmate?

Discussion and Decision

14. The prison inmate was convicted and sentenced inter-alia for the offence under Section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment in Sessions Case No.376 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. The said conviction and sentence against the prison inmate was confirmed vide Judgement dated 09.04.2013 passed by this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.255 of 2008. Currently, pursuant to the above Judgment, the prison inmate is serving the sentence. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

15. It is to be noted that bail was granted to the prison inmate pending Crl.A.(MD) No.255 of 2008 vide order dated 05.11.2008 made in M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2008. The above Crl.A.(MD) No.255 of 2008 was dismissed on 09.04.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that the prison inmate had returned to the prison on 15.01.2019. The said fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Thus, the prison inmate had been out of prison for more than 10 years during which the legal heirs or relatives of victim had not raised any complaint against the prison inmate. The prison inmate is in prison for the past 4 years pursuant to the Judgement passed in the above-mentioned Criminal Appeal and the same is not disputed by the respondents. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the prison inmate was granted emergency leave twice and had returned to the prison without any untoward incidents.

16. TNSS Rules is a piece of subordinate legislation framed under Section 432(5) of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC']. The said Rules speak about two kinds of leave, i.e. (i) emergency leave and (ii) ordinary leave. Rule 6 speaks about grounds of emergency leave. Rule 7 speaks about eligibility of emergency leave. Rule 10 speaks about Authority who ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 may grant emergency leave. Rule 19 speaks about Authority who has power to grant ordinary leave. Rule 20 speaks about grounds of ordinary leave. Rule 22 speaks about eligibility of ordinary leave. Admittedly, the prison inmate is Life Convict Prisoner and has completed 4 years of sentence. Hence, as per Rule 22 of TNSS Rule, he is eligible for ordinary leave.

17. As per the above-mentioned Rule 19, the second respondent is not an authority for granting ordinary leave. Though the petitioner has sent the representation dated 01.09.2023 seeking for ordinary leave to the prison inmate to the second respondent, she did not send the same to the first respondent. It is apposite to state here Rules 23 & 24 of TNSS Rules which read as follows:-

23. Petition for ordinary leave.- (1) The petition for ordinary leave shall be submitted by the prisoner or by a relative of the said prisoner to the Deputy Inspector-General of Prisons concerned direct or sent through the Superintendent of Prison where the prisoner to whom leave is to be granted is confined.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 (2) Each petition for ordinary leave shall be accompanied with a statement of the names of two sureties who are willing to execute the bond for the prisoner's release on leave and take care of the prisoner during the period of leave. In the petition, it shall be stated, among other things, the names and addresses of the prisoner's relatives with whom he wishes to stay during his leave period.

In case of female pregnant prisoner, for having delivery outside the prison, the Petition for ordinary leave shall be submitted along with Medical Certificate or report of the Prison Medical Officer or Assistant Surgeon in respect of probable date of delivery.

24. Process of Petition.- (1) All petitions for the grant of ordinary leave submitted to the Superintendent of Prisons shall be referred to the Probation Officer concerned within three days of its receipt for reports on the advisability of the ordinary leave of the prisoner in question.

(2) (a) The Probation Officer shall personally enquire into and send his report to the Superintendent of Prisons in Form I within ten day of its receipt from the Superintendent of Prisons. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 10 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

(b) In cases where the Probation Officer feels that the release on leave of a prisoner is likely to involve breach of peace in the locality, he shall consult the local Inspector of Police/Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer), solely with a view to avoid any breach of peace and record the views of the Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer) in the Form I.

(c) In respect of other cases, in which there is no likelihood of breach of peace, the Probation officer shall send his report direct to the Superintendent of Prisons without consulting the local Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer).

(3) On receipt of report from the Probation Officer, the Superintendent of Prisons, shall forward the petition along with the records such as the Nominal Roll of the prisoner, Check memorandum in Form II, statement showing the details of leave availed by the prisoner from the date of his conviction, a statement showing the offences committed by the prisoner and punishment awarded, and the Probation Officer's report within six days to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons for orders.

(4) (a) The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons may, on consideration of the petition and the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 11 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 records and reports received along with the petition pass such orders as he deems fit within seven days of receipt of the proposal from the Superintendent of Prisons.

(b) In cases where all petitions submitted directly to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, the petition shall be forwarded to the Probation Officer concerned through the Superintendent of Prisons concerned within three days for further course of action.

(5) In any event, the whole process of disposal of petition should not exceed twenty eight days from the date of receipt of petition.

18. As per the above Rules, the second respondent ought to have processed and forwarded the ordinary leave application to the first respondent who is the Competent Authority to grant ordinary leave as per the aforesaid Rules. As per Rule 19, the first respondent could have granted leave or forwarded the same to the government with prison records and probation officer's report for exercising its power under Rule 40 of TNSS Rules. In view of the impugned order, the petitioner has lost the above-said opportunity.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 12 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

19. Further, in the impugned order, it has been stated that C.C.No. 293 of 2020 is pending before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. This Court has verified the status of the said case through E-Courts website. A screenshot of the same is as follows:-

As per E-Courts website, the said case is posted on 02.11.2023 for framing charges. It is to be noted that bail was granted to the prison inmate vide order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2020.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 13 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

20. This court perused the status of the another case in C.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi through E-courts website. A screenshot of the same is as follows:-

As per E-Courts website, it is posted on 01.12.2023 for issue of service which shows that the summon is yet to be served to the prison inmate. It is apposite to mention that the bail was granted to the prison inmate in the said case vide order dated 17.09.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 4522 of 2018.

21. It is to be noted that the impugned order does not say whether the prison inmate is on bail in both the cases. Since the prison intimate is ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 14 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 on bail in both the cases, the respondents had no difficulty in acceding the request of the petitioner. In other words, the prison inmate is not in prison in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the second respondent is not under obligation to produce the prison inmate for the said cases before the aforesaid Courts on 02.11.2023 and 01.12.2023 respectively unless aforesaid Courts issued 'Prisoner Transfer Warrant' [for the sake of convenience and clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'P.T. Warrant'] against the prison inmate. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent without considering all material particulars.

22. In the impugned order, it has been stated that Crime No. 148/1997 under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) of IPC is pending. The said detail is incorrect. In fact, the prison inmate has been convicted in Crime No.148/1997 and is currently serving the sentence in prison.

Further, as mentioned in the impugned order, Crime No.148/1997 does not relate to C.C.No.49 of 2021. Hence, particulars of alleged pending cases stated in the impugned order are incorrect. Hence, C.C.No.49 of 2021 which is in service stage cannot stand on the way for granting ordinary leave to the prison inmate incarcerated in pursuance of the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 15 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 sentence imposed in Crime No.148/1997. C.C.No.293 of 2020 is in the stage of framing of charge i.e. 'pre-trial stage'. Hence, both the cases i.e., C.C.No.49 of 2021 and C.C.No.293 of 2020 are in the 'pre-trial stage'. Hence the said cases cannot be termed as 'pending trial'. In view of the reasons to be stated infra, the said case also may not stand on the way for granting ordinary leave.

23. The prison inmate is not in prison but on bail in C.C.No.293 of 2020. The second respondent is under an obligation to produce the prison inmate before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai if any request is received by way of P.T. Warrant from the said Court. In the absence of P.T. Warrant or request, the second respondent is not under an obligation to produce prison inmate before the said Court. Assuming the moment that the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai has issued P.T. Warrant, even then the second respondent can inform the said court that the prison inmate is out of prison in pursuance of the ordinary leave granted to the prison inmate. Further, while granting ordinary leave, the prison inmate can be directed to appear before the Court concerned.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 16 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

24. It is to be noted that TNSS Rules is a subordinate legislation framed under Section 435(5) of Cr.P.C. This Bench while sitting in the Principal Seat at Madras decided S.Ishwariya's case [S.Ishwariya Vs. The State rep. by Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home and another, W.P.No.28162 of 2023, order dated 27.09.2023]. Facts of the said case are as follows. The prison inmate therein was convicted and sentenced to undergo 20 years of rigours imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The Conviction and Sentence was assailed before the High Court vide Crl.A.No.10 of 2019 and the same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the Judgment, the prison inmate therein preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, a Curative Petition against the same has been filed and same is pending. Pending the Curative petition, the prison inmate sought for an ordinary leave. In the above factual matrix, this Bench in para (8) held as follows:-

8. ........

(i) ......

(ii) ....

(iii) ....

iv) Grounds on which leave has been sought are ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 17 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 grounds for ordinary leave and are not grounds for emergency leave (to be noted, grounds for ordinary leave have been adumbrated in Rule 20 of said Rules and grounds for emergency leave have been adumbrated in Rule 6 of said Rules).

v) Be that as it may, as regards ordinary leave, the Authority vested with the power under said Rules to deal with the same is Deputy Inspector General of Prisons [second respondent] but in the case on hand, impugned order has been made by the third respondent who vide Rule 10 is vested with the authority to deal with only emergency leave. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be interfered with on this technical ground also;

vi) On a demurrer, Rule 35 of said Rules talks about pendency of trial qua a prison inmate. In our considered view, pendency of a curative petition will not become pendency of a trial as it is Apex jurisdiction of the highest Court. To be noted, Curative Petition is post SLP and it is subjected to certain rigorous procedural requirements and that has prompted us to describe a curative petition as 'Apex jurisdiction'. Therefore, a curative petition cannot be construed as pendency of a trial.

This view is being taken as the objective behind Rule 35 of said Rules is to ensure that a prison inmate if he is facing trial does not make himself scarce in the trial Court so that the trial gets derailed. This situation is not going to emerge as regards curative petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

vii) ....

viii) In Selvam's case reported in 2023:MHC:4258 [Neutral Citation of Madras High Court] this Bench dealt with the principle as to how said Rules which is a piece of ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 18 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 Subordinate Legislation cannot abridge much less denude constitutional powers of this Court. The most relevant portion in Selvam's case which was also a case pertaining to grant of leave is contained in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 8 and the relevant portion reads as follows:

'(iii)....In this regard, we remind ourselves that a prisoner and his fundamental rights do not part ways at the prison gates and Right to Education is indisputably a fundamental right. The said Rules is a piece of Subordinate Legislation made by Executive i.e., Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of Rule making powers inter alia under Section 432(5) of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'Cr.PC' for the sake of brevity and clarity]. A piece of Subordinate Legislation which has not gone through grind i.e., Legislative grind in the Legislature can hardly constrict or in any manner hamper Constitutional powers of this Court, more so, when such Constitutional powers pertain to Article 21 of Constitution of India. In this regard, we remind ourselves of recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Elgar Parishad case i.e., Vernon case [Vernon Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885 :

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575], wherein K.A.Najeeb principle [Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb reported in 2021 3 SCC 713] was reiterated to say that a bail restricting clause in a Statute cannot denude jurisdiction of Constitutional Court and that this is a fundamental proposition. Though K.A.Najeeb principle and Elgar Parishad case were rendered in the light of Section 43D of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, principle applies in all fours i.e., principle that a restriction clause in a Statute cannot denude jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court applies in all force. We draw inspiration from Hon'ble Supreme Court, having declared that this is a fundamental proposition. Reverting to the case on hand, said Rules is not even a Statute, it is a Subordinate Legislation made under Rule making powers vested with the Executive under Section ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 19 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 432(5) of Cr.PC and this Subordinate Legislation has not gone through legislative grind of law making in the Legislature. Therefore, this piece of Subordinate Legislation is only a codified guideline for the Executive to deal with requests for leave from prisoners and it cannot abridge Constitutional powers which this Court is exercising. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that a prisoner and his fundamental rights do not part ways at the prison gates. To put it in a nutshell, Subordinate Legislation cannot denude nay not even abridge Constitutional powers.' The above said principle applies in all force to the case on hand and therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that a piece of Subordinate Legislation which has not undergone the Legislative drill cannot abridge or curtail much less denude Constitutional powers of this Court.

25. Moreover, trial has not yet commenced in both the cases. Hence, both the cases are in 'pre-trial stage'. Rule 35 reads as follows:-

35. Pending cases.- No prisoner on whom a case is pending trial shall be granted leave.

Therefore, they don't fall under the ambit of the word “pending trial” under Rule 35 of TNSS Rules.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 20 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that pending the above cases i.e., C.C.No.293 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and C.C.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi cannot be an impediment under Rule 35 of TNSS Rules to grant ordinary leave to the prison inmate.

27. It is stated that the prison inmate was granted emergency leave twice and even on those occasions no untoward incidents happened. Further, bail was granted to the prison inmate vide order dated 05.11.2008 made in Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2008 in Crl.A.(MD) No.255 of 2008. It shows that the prison inmate was out of prison for more than 10 years. During the said period also, no complaint was received from the victim family or victim side. In view of the facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered view that Rule 35 of TNSS Rules shall not be an impediment on the way of this Court to exercise its constitutional power for granting ordinary leave to the prison inmate. For the above-said reasons, this court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition and grant ordinary leave subject to the following conditions:-

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 21 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

(a) impugned order/undated order (signed on 12.09.2023) bearing reference No.13970/Ta.Ku.2/2023 made by second respondent is set aside/quashed.

(b) 20 days ordinary leave without escort is granted to the prison inmate namely Komban @ Kombaiya (LCT No. 6350);

(d) the prison inmate shall stay in the address given in the cause title of this Writ Petition namely, No.33/1, South Street, Mailappapuram, Pettai, Tirunelveli District through out the leave period;

(e) the prison inmate shall appear and sign before the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Tirunelveli on all working days at 10.00 a.m. through out the leave period.

(f) the prison inmate shall utilize the 20 days ordinary leave only for the purpose for which it has been granted and shall not partake in any other activities;

(g) the prison inmate shall surrender before the second respondent at or before 05.30 p.m. on 22.11.2023. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 22 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023

(h) The second respondent is directed to file a compliance report on or before 29.11.2023 before this Court.

28. This Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                 (M.S., J.)         (R.S.V., J.)

                                                                         30.10.2023
                    Index: Yes
                    Neutral Citation: Yes
                    Internet: Yes
                    Speaking order
                    jen

                    Note:-

1. In view of this order, the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai is requested to give adjournment after the leave period, ie. after 23.11.2023.

2. Registry is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.

3. Though this Writ Petition is disposed of, Registry is directed to post this matter under the caption 'COMPLIANCE REPORT' on 01.12.2023.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 23 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 To

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Jail, New Jail Road, Madurai District.

3.The Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

4.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi.

5.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 24 of 25 W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., jen Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.(MD) No.24945 of 2023 30.10.2023 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 25 of 25

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court