Madras High Court
C.George vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 21 July, 2016
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, B.Gokuldas
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS
H.C.P(MD)No.854 of 2013
C.George : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram Central Prison,
Poojapura,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the
body of the petitioner-C.George, son of Chacko-aged about 40 years, presently
detained in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, as Convict No.9195,
before this Court and to set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The petitioner has undergone 18 years of imprisonment, pursuant to the judgment in S.C.No.241 of 1987 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. However, he was not given the benefit of premature release as per Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008, on the ground of violation of the conditions of parole. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The factual matrix indicates that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.241 of 1987 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner was transferred to the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, pursuant to his request. The petitioner was given parole on multiple occasions. While he was on parole in 1992, the petitioner got married and in the said wedlock, children were born to him. The petitioner failed to return to the Jail, as according to him, his wife was laid up and there was nobody to look after her. The petitioner was, subsequently, arrested and sent to the open Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is presently confined at the Central Prison & Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Government have issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008, granting premature release to the life convicts, who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15 September, 2008. The petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria with regard to the actual imprisonment. However, he was not given the benefit of the said Government Order, on account of his overstay. Since the petitioner was convicted by a Sessions Court at Madurai in the State of Tamil Nadu, his case was not considered by the Government of Kerala for premature release.
4. The Government of Tamil Nadu released 1405 life convicts on 11 September, 2008, who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment. Even though the petitioner completed ten years of actual imprisonment as on 11 September, 2008, his case was not taken up for release presumably on the ground that he violated the conditions of parole.
5. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008, but for his violation of the conditions of parole. According to the first respondent, the petitioner jumped out of parole and as such, his case was not considered for premature release in 2008. In short, the violation of the condition of parole alone made the Government not to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release, pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008.
6. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008, contain a provision that the general behaviour of the convict in the prison should be satisfactory. It was only this provision which was interpreted by the Government, in the light of the violation committed by the petitioner by overstaying, to deny him the beneift of premature release.
7. Since the general behaviour of the life convict in the prison is a relevant material to be considered for premature release, we have called for a report from the Superintendent of Central Prison & Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthampuram.
8. The Superintendent of Central Prison, in his report dated 05 July, 2016, certified that the petitioner is reformed and his conduct inside the prison is satisfactory. The report reads thus:
"1. I am one of the respondent in the above petition.
2. I may inform that C.No.9195 George S/o.Chacko, Elamthuruthiyil Veedu, Erumely North Village, Punchavayal PO, Mundakkayam PS, Kottayam District was convicted by the Honourable Principal Sessions Court, Madurai in SC 241/87 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life under section 302 IPC, RI for one year under Section 459 IPC and SI for one year under section 309 IPC on 21.03.1988.
3. C.No.9195 George S/o.Chacko had completed 18 years and 19 days actual imprisonment on 01.07.2016.
4. The convict George is a hard working prisoner. He is assigned the duty of "Maistry" to control other prisoners in one block of this Prison. He is sincere and loyal to the commands of the authorities and perform his duties vey well. He is reformed and disciplined. His conduct inside the prison is satisfactory.
5. The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
9. The documents available on record indicate that on account of the poor health condition of his wife, the petitioner overstayed the parole period. The police have not registered any case against the petitioner in spite of his overstay. This fact clearly shows that the police and the prison authorities were also aware of the precarious position of the petitioner and the factors contributed for his overstay.
10. The petitioner satisfied the conditions prescribed for premature release. His conduct inside the prison is satisfactory. The petitioner has completed 18 years and 19 days of actual imprisonment as on 01 July, 2016. When it is made out that the petitioner is a reformed person, there is no reason to deny him the benefit of the Government Order, directing premature release of convicts who have undergone seven years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner, in his representation, submitted through the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, very clearly stated that he has purchased a property and constructed a house. His wife and children are eagerly waiting for his release. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted a fair report with regard to the behaviour of the petitioner inside prison. It would not be in the interest of Society to keep a reformed man inside without giving the benefit of the Government Order solely on account of an earlier act of overstay. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be released in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11 September, 2008.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The petitioner, by name C.George, S/o.Chacko, Convict No.9195 (convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.241 of 1987), who is now confined at the Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Superintendent of Prison, Thiruvananthapuram Central Prison, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.