Madras High Court
Subashini vs The Superintendent Of Prison on 28 April, 2022
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
Subashini :Petitioner
.vs.
The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai. : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the respondent's
impugned order in No.5068/jF 2/2022, dated 05.04.2022 and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider
the representation dated 28.03.2022 for granting Parole for his
husband namely Satheeshkumar, (Life Convict 5530) for
transferring the land belong to petitioner's husband to petitioner
name in S.No.75/3B1, situated at Kothakulam Village, Sivagangai
District.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Prabha
For Respondents :Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
ORDER
***********
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Challenge in this writ petition is to the rejection of the
petitioner's application for grant of ordinary leave for her husband,
who is undergoing life sentence.
2. The claim for Ordinary leave has been rejected on the
ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed 3 years of
imprisonment, which is the eligibility criteria fixed under the Sub
Rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence
Rules, 1982.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
further contend that the authorities have not taken into account the
period of incarceration pending trial and in the judgment of this
Court in 2014 (2) MLJ (Crl) 651, it is held that life convict would
be entitled to Ordinary Leave after completion of two years of Life
Imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
4. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The three years period under Rule 22
Sub Rule (1) of the Rules, should be after the sentence and not
pending trial. The very wording of the Rule reads as follows:-
"22(1) No prisoner shall be granted ordinary leave
unless he has been sentenced by a Court in this State to
imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life for an
offence against any law other than a law relating to a
matter to which the executive power of the Union
Government extends and he has completed [three years]
of imprisonment from the date of initial imprisonment."
5. 22(1) of Rules would show that the ordinary leave could be
granted to a person, who has been sentenced by Court, which
would automatically exclude the period of incarceration served
during trial, though the same can be used for set off under Section
428 of the Cr.P.C.
6. As regards the second contention based on the judgment
2014 (2) MLJ (Crl.) 651, the said judgment has been delivered
with reference to Sub Rule 3 of Rule 22 and that would be for a
second spell of leave where the requirement is that the prisoner
should have completed two years of imprisonment between first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
spell and the second spell. We do not think that the said judgment
would apply in this case. We do not see any merit in the writ
petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
However, as pointed out by the authorities themselves, the
petitioner would be entitled to renew the application after
completion of three years of incarceration.
[R.S.M.,J.] & [N.S.K.,J.]
28.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
To
The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
am
0RDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.8570 of 2022
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
