Madras High Court
R.Soundarapandiyan vs State Represented By on 22 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
R.Soundarapandiyan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison IV) Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
CMDA Towers II, No.1,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Madurai Range,
Central Prison Campus,
Madurai – 625 016.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai – 625 016. : Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
the petitioner's premature release rejection order in NO.18402/Tha.Ku.1/2009,
dated 19.12.2009 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal
and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as an eligible life convict
prisoner for premature release from Central Prison, Madurai on the basis of
G.O.Ms.No.1155 Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.09.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Standing Counsel for the State
ORDER
The petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 379, 449, 307 and 302
(3 counts) IPC and under Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 in S.C.No.331
of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai. The trial
Court by judgment dated 28.02.2002 found the petitioner guilty, convicted and
imposed death sentence. On the appeal filed by the petitioner in
Crl.A.No.512 of 2002 and in R.T.No.3 of 2002, this Court by judgment dated
22.04.2002 confirmed by the conviction, but modified the death sentence to that of
a life imprisonment and since then the petitioner has been in central prison at
Madurai. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has completed 14 years
of imprisonment and he is entitled for pre-mature release.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
2.The petitioner's wife one S.Murugeswari made a representation for
considering the case of her husband for premature release and the same was
rejected by the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai vide his proceedings
No.18402/Tha.Ku.1/2009, dated 19.12.2009 that the petitioner Soundarapandian's
premature release cannot be considered, since he has been convicted under
Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act. As against the said rejection, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
3.It appears that the request of the petitioner for premature release was
rejected on the ground that the petitioner was also convicted for the offence under
Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act. The petitioner was tried for the offence under
Sections 379, 449, 307 & 302 (3 counts) IPC and under Section 25(1-b)(A) of the
Arms Act. The death sentence imposed by the trial Court was modified as that of
life imprisonment by this Court on appeal. Insofar as the offence under
Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act is concerned, the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
4.The petitioner is in prison for more than 14 years. Meaning thereby, he has
already undergone the sentence period for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(A) of
the Arms Act. If an accused has already undergone the imprisonment period for a
particular offence, then such an offence cannot be a cited as a bar for considering
his case for any relief.
5.In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajan v. Home
Secretary of Tamil Nadu [W.P.(Crl.)No.321 of 2018], has held as follows:
“19. ...Considering the fact that the sentence awarded for the
said offence has already been completed by the petitioner and thus
cannot be reckoned for the purpose of deciding the representation
of remission of life sentence...
20. ...We also hold that consultation with the Central
Government would not be necessary and the State Government
being the appropriate Government, must exercise power conferred
upon it in terms of Section 432 and 433 of CrPC.”
6.In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Veera Bharathi [Crl.A.No.120 of 2009, dated
22.01.2019], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while concurring with the views of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
Court in HCP(MD)No.540 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016, has held as follows:
“But, if a lifer is to be convicted for much lesser
offence, say offences under Section 224, 498A of Indian Penal
Code etc., and sentenced to small periods of imprisonment,
notwithstanding the fact that he had completed more than 10
years of custody, he would still not be eligible for early
release. Such a situation, in our considered view, cannot be
allowed to prevail by understanding the operation of the
Rules in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants.”
7.Since the petitioner has already completed the sentence for the offence
under Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act, it cannot be now cited as a bar by the
respondents to decline his case for premature release.
8.Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for the State has also produced a
copy of the recommendation made by the Advisory Board for releasing the
petitioner / life convict prisoner no.3933, namely, Soundarapandian
S/o.Ramasamy, under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. The opinion of the Superintendent of
Central Prison, Madurai, was also produced before this Court, wherein, the
conduct of the petitioner was remarked as good.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
9.In view of the subsequent developments, the impugned proceedings of the
4th respondent is set aside and the 1st respondent shall take a decision on the
premature release of the petitioner in accordance with law, based on the
recommendation of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai in D.No.1904/2021,
dated 18.03.2021 and the opinion of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10.In the result, this writ petition is disposed with the above direction.
No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2021
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison IV) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
CMDA Towers II, No.1,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Madurai Range,
Central Prison Campus,
Madurai – 625 016.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai – 625 016.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P(MD)No.3806 of 2010
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
