Madras High Court
Kavitha vs The State Represented By Its on 17 August, 2023
2023/MHC/3788
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
Kavitha .. Petitioner/
Wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The State represented by its
The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai – 625 001.
3.The Superintendent,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Palayamkottai – 620 020. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the Impugned Order No.421/Tha.Ku.2/2022 dated 25.01.2023, issued by
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the
respondents to grant leave for 40 days without escort to the detenu,
Chelladurai S/o.Rajendran, life convict No.2260 prematurely, confined at
Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)
When the petitioner herein had sought for grant of ordinary leave for
her husband, namely, Chelladurai, who is a life convict prisoner (Life
Convict No.2260) and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, her
request was rejected by the third respondent through the impugned order
dated 25.01.2023, predominantly, on the ground that while her husband was
earlier granted emergency leave on 01.07.2019 for three days, he had
absconded and accordingly, proceedings were initiated for an offence under
Section 224 IPC in Crime No.296/2019. It is further stated that in view of
the Circular of the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
of Prisons in No.26594/PS.4/2017 dated 15.12.2017, the petitioner's
husband will not be entitled for grant of any sort of leave, since he had
faced prosecution for the offence under Section 224 IPC in the past five
years. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2. The case in Crime No.296/2019 had culminated into
S.T.C.No.604/2022, in which the petitioner's husband was acquitted through
a judgment dated 01.08.2022 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate, Sengottai.
3. The Circular of the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector
General of Prisons dated 15.12.2017, which was relied upon in the
impugned order, reads as follows:
“No.26594/PS.4/2017 O/o.Additional Director General of
Police/Inspector General of Prisons,
Chennai – 8.
Dated : 15.12.2017
Sub : Prisons – Granting of leave to prisoners –
instructions – issued – Regarding.
Ref : This office memo No.26594/PS4/2017, dated –
13.10.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
...
In this office memo cited, instructions have been issued not
to grant any sort of leave to those prisoners who were absent on
leave previously and facing / faced case u/s 224 IPC.
2. In this connection, it is informed that during the course of
meeting of Additional Director General of Police / Inspector
General of Prisons with the Range Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons and Superintendent of Prisons held on 11.12.2017, the
matter was discussed in detail. All the Range Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons and Superintendent of Prisons are instructed
not to grant any sort of leave to the prisoner who were absent on
leave previously and facing/faced case u/s 224 IPC in the past 5
years preceeding the date of commencement of leave.
Sd/-Ashuthosh Shukla
Addl. Director General of Police/
Inspector General of Prisons
To:
All Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.
All Superintendent of Central Prisons,
Special Prisons for Women.
// Forwarded by order//
Superintendent”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
4. A perusal of the aforesaid Circular would suggest that the Circular
may cover the prisoners, who are either facing prosecution under Section
224 IPC or who have already faced prosecution under Section 224 IPC. The
Circular does not state as to what is the sanctity of an acquittal order passed
in cases of offence under Section 224 IPC. Apparently, when a convict has
been subjected to criminal proceedings and has been duly tried and
acquitted, he cannot be termed to have committed an offence under Section
224 IPC. If that be so, the Circular of the Inspector General of Prisons,
insofar as it relates to the term “faced cases under Section 224 IPC”, would
only refer to case of a person, who has been convicted for the offence.
Thus, the reason assigned by the respondents in the impugned order, for
rejection by placing reliance on the Circular of the Inspector General of
Prisons, may not be correct.
5. The petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of the present Writ
Petition seeking for leave for her husband, has stated that owing to her poor
financial status, she is unable to pay the school fees of her son and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
therefore, seeks for the presence of her husband to arrange money from his
friends or relatives for their expenses. Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu
Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”),
provides for grant of ordinary leave to a prisoner on various circumstances,
including a situation for making arrangements for the admission of the
children of the convict in the school or college.
6. Under the amended Rule 22(2)(c) of the Rules, the convict, who
has completed 6 years of imprisonment and not exceeding 14 years of
imprisonment, would be entitled for grant of 28 days of ordinary leave. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner's husband has completed 10 years and has
not exceeded 14 years of imprisonment. Thus, he would be entitled for 28
days of ordinary leave, in accordance with the amended Rule 22(2)(c) of the
Rules.
7. In the light of the above findings and observations, the impugned
order dated 25.01.2023 on the file of the third respondent is set aside.
Consequently, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband, namely, Chelladurai (Life
Convict No.2260), for a period of 28 days commencing from 19.08.2023,
without escort. While passing such orders, the second respondent herein is
at liberty to impose reasonable conditions, including the condition for the
petitioner's husband to report before the Inspector of Police, Courtrallam
Police Station, Tirunelveli District, twice daily at 10.00 AM and 6.00 PM,
for the entire period of the ordinary leave. On completion of the leave
period, he shall report and surrender before the second/third respondent.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.)
17.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Lm
Note: Issue order copy by 18.08.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
The State,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai – 625 001.
3.The Superintendent,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Palayamkottai – 620 020.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Lm
W.P.(MD).No.7386 of 2023
17.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
