Madras High Court
K.Mariammal vs The Home Secretary on 15 November, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
K.Mariammal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Home Secretary
Home Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai
2.The Additional Director General of Prisons
Wanels Road
Egmore, Chennai-8
3.The Superintendent of Central Jail
Madurai Central Prison
Madurai District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petition dated
23.07.2019 submitted to first respondent for premature release of the
petitioners husband K.Moorthy extending the benefit of the G.O.M.S.No.64,
Home (Prison), dated 01.02.2018, life convict No.5414 detained in the Central
Jail, Madurai and undergoing the life sentence in S.C.No.34 of 1999, on the
file of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
For Petitioner : Ms.W.Pamelin
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
This writ petition is filed by the wife of the life convict seeking
premature release of her husband by extending the benefits of G.O.(Ms) No.64,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018.
2. The facts of the case is that the life convict was tried for the
charges under Sections 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. (five counts) and Section 3 of
the Explosive Substances Act in S.C.No.34 of 1999, on the file of the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and was sentenced to undergo the following
imprisonments:
Imprisonment for life under each
counter consecutively and to pay a
Under Section 302 (5 counts) I.P.C.
fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count in
default R.I. for 2 years
Under Section 148 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year
Under Section 341 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for one month
Under Section 3 of Indian Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act No. Rigorous imprisonment for one year.
6 of 1908)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband is entitled for
premature release as per G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated
01.02.2018, wherein the State Government, in exercise of its power under
Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has taken a policy
decision for the release of prisoners on their good conduct in the light of the
birthday centenary celebration of the Former Chief Minister
Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. The said Government Order has laid down the
category of prisoners entitled for premature release and the pre-requisite
conditions to consider their case. In the case on hand, the Government has
not considered the case of the convict herein for the reason that he has not
satisfied the requisite conditions for the premature release as laid down in
G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018.
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicates
that the life convict was found guilty for the major offence under Section 302
I.P.C. (5 counts) and slapped with imprisonment of life for each count to run
consecutively, besides for the offence under Section 3 of Indian Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, which is a Central Act, he was sentenced to undergo
one year rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded by the
Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court, however, the period of sentence
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
was ordered to run concurrently and the said order was confirmed by the
Honourable Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 16.07.2019 in Criminal
Appeal Nos.571 – 573 of 2010.
5. Though G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated
01.02.2018, enables the life convicts, who have completed ten years of actual
imprisonment as on 25.02.2018, to seek premature release, as a pre-
condition, the prisoners should exhibit satisfactory behaviour and they should
not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under the
Central Acts.
6. Apart from the embargo imposed in G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home
(Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, it is also stated in the counter
affidavit that the convict herein had suffered prison punishment i.e.forfeiture
of the prison privilege of interview for three months twice as per Sub-Rule (4)
of Rule 302 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 for possessing cellphone
inside the prison illegally.
7. On the facts of the case, the State has taken note of the brutal
murder of five remand prisoners and injury to four Police personnel by the
petitioner's husband and relying upon the Judgment of the Honourable
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
Supreme Court rendered in Rajan vs. The Home Secretary, Home
Department of Tamil Nadu and others, dated 25.04.2019, found that the
husband of the petitioner is not eligible for premature release for having not
satisfied the basic requirements for consideration.
8. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the decision
taken by the State Government for not considering the case of the petitioner
under G.O.(Ms) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the lift convict is suffering imprisonment for more than 17
years and even otherwise, his case can be considered for premature release
under Rule 340 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983.
10. In response to the above submission, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor referred to Paragraph No.12 of the counter affidavit, wherein
it is stated that the Prison Authorities have initiated the process of
constituting Advisory Board to consider the case of life convict, who has
completed 14 years of sentence as on 29.12.2018 and due to covid pandemic
situation, the case of the life convict cannot be taken up for consideration by
the Advisory Board.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
11. This Court is conscious of the fact that premature release is not
a matter of right. Life sentence means it is for the entire life and any
premature release can be done only following the due process of law and such
process is subject to the prerogative power of the Executive. In this case, we
find that the State has considered the case of the life convict and has initiated
the process under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. Hence, it is suffice to
record that the respondents shall expedite the said process and communicate
the decision to the petitioner as well as the life convict at the earliest.
12. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
15.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Home Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Additional Director General of Prisons,
Wanels Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3.The Superintendent of Central Jail,
Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.292 of 2020
15.11.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
