Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Er. P. Veera Bhaarathi vs Apoorva Verma Ias . on 8 March, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 429/2015
IN
SLP(CRL) NO. 6481/2013
ER. P. VEERA BHAARATHI PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
APOORVA VERMA IAS AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 08/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ram Shankar, Adv.
Mr. G. Anandaselvam, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
Mr. Surya Narayanan Pataro, Adv.
Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG
Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv.AAG
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Patel, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The contempt petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2016.03.10 09:58:12 IST [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Reason:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 429/2015 IN SLP(CRL) NO. 6481/2013 ER. P. VEERA BHAARATHI ...PETITIONER VERSUS APOORVA VERMA IAS AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the following directions of this Court in the order dated 18th November, 2014 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6481 of 2013:
“Though the entitlement of the petitioner Er.P. Veera Bhaarathi to the benefit of release under G.O.(Ms.) No.1155, Home dated 11th September, 2008 is the principal issue arising in this Special Leave Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Petitioner has, by this time, completed 15 2 years of custody, he would be entitled to the benefit of remission, etc., in accordance with the laws in force de-hors the operation of the aforesaid G.O. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that a direction may be issued for due consideration of the case of the Petitioner for release.
Having also heard Shri
Subramonium Prasad, learned
counsel appearing for the State of Tamilnadu, we are of the view that the Petitioner's case for remission/commutation, etc., in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual be considered by the State Authority and an appropriate order be passed on the Petitioner's entitlement for release within a period of two months from today.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
2. From the counter filed on behalf of the respondents and the materials laid before the Court in the course of the hearing, it appears that in view of an interim order dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in another case the case of the petitioner could not be considered. However, after 3 the said order dated 9th July, 2014 of the Constitution Bench of this Court was modified on 23rd July, 2015, the case of the petitioner was taken up and considered in the light of Rule 341(3) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 contained in Volume II of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, which enumerates certain classes of prisoners who are not eligible for premature release in the following terms:
“Prisoners convicted of rape, forgery, dacoity, terrorist crimes, offences against the State and prisoners sentenced under sections 224, 376, 396 to 400, 402, 467, 471, 472, 474, 489-A, 489-B and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860)”
3. As the conviction of the petitioner was, inter alia, under Section 376 IPC there was a bar to the grant of remission to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Rule 341(3) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, extracted above. 4
4. Before us, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India has placed a copy of the order dated 28th August, 2015 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison,IV) Department by which the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected.
5. From the above, it is clear to us that the order of this Court dated 18th November, 2014 which was to consider the case of the petitioner for release/remission has been duly considered and consequential orders have been passed on 28th August, 2015. The contempt petition, therefore, is without any merit and substance. It is accordingly dismissed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI MARCH 08, 2016