Madras High Court
J.John Joseph Pringston vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 September, 2023
2023/MHC/5085
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 03.11.2023
Pronounced on 17.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
J.John Joseph Pringston ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by its
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range,
Madurai - 625 001.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Palayamkottai. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
records pertaining to the Rejection Order dated 04.09.2023 bearing
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 13
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
reference No.29/Tha.Ku.2/2023 passed by the third respondent and quash
the same and consecutively direct the first respondent to grant leave for
40 days without escort to the detenue, Anthony Luns Lord, S/o.A.Jesu
Soosai Innasi, Convict No.29, detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Dr.S.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
This Writ Petition has been presented on 09.10.2023 praying to call
for the records pertaining to an undated order (signed on 04.09.2023)
bearing reference No.29/Tha.Ku.2/2023 passed by the third respondent
(for the sake of convenience and brevity, hereinafter referred to as
'impugned order'), quash the same and consecutively direct the first
respondent to grant 40 days ordinary leave without escort to the
petitioner's brother namely, Anthony Luns Lord, (for the sake of
convenience and brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'prison inmate')
S/o.A.Jesu Soosai Innasi, Life Convict Prisoner No.29, detained at Central
Prison, Palayamkottai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
2. The prison inmate is a life convict prisoner, convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 397 of 'Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)' (for the sake of convenience and brevity, hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo Rigourous Imprisonment
for Life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo Rigours
Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 of
IPC, vide Judgment dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned I Additional
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.343 of 1997.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the prison inmate had already
undergone the lesser sentence and has been serving life imprisonment for
the offence under Section 302 of IPC nearly for the past 25 years; that the
petitioner's another brother namely, Mr.Anthony Bipin Raj had sent a
representation to the respondents on 21.01.2022 seeking ordinary leave to
the prison inmate and the said representation was rejected by the third
respondent vide order dated 27.01.2022 bearing reference No.29/Ta.Ku.
2/2022; that the petitioner's brother therefore filed a Writ Petition in W.P.
(MD) No.4493 of 2022 before this Court for setting aside the said order
dated 27.01.2022 and this Court by an order dated 14.03.2022 set aside
the said order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the third respondent and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
directed the authorities to consider the case of the prison inmate in the
light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Veera
Bhaarathi's case [The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. P.Veera
Bhaarathi reported in (2019) 18 SCC 71]; that since the respondents
have not complied with the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD) No.4493 of 2022, the petitioner's brother had again sent a
representation dated 03.09.2022 to the respondents through registered
post to consider the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD) No.4493 of 2022; that even after lapse of 16 months, the
respondents have not considered the case of the prison inmate as per the
directions of this Court and therefore, a contempt notice was sent to the
third respondent on 18.01.2023 on behalf of the petitioner's brother and
that thereafter, Contempt Petition in Cont.P.(MD) No.1637 of 2023 was
filed before this Court and thereafter, the third respondent passed the
impugned order rejecting the ordinary leave request on the premise that
the Probation Officer, Nanguneri and Inspector of Police, Kudankulam
have not recommended for grant of leave to the prison inmate. In the
mean time, the petitioner's brother namely, Mr.Anthony Bipin Raj who
filed the Contempt Petition passed away. Hence the petitioner who is the
another brother of prison inmate has filed this Writ Petition.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the petition
averments and submitted that the impugned order has been passed only
after the filing the Contempt Petition. He further submitted that the third
respondent who is not a competent authority to sanction ordinary leave to
the prison inmate, has rejected the request of 40 days ordinary leave in a
mechanical manner without applying his mind. Therefore, the impugned
order has to be set aside. He further submitted that emergency leave has
been granted several times to the prison inmate and he returned to the
prison every time without any untoward incidents. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the present Writ Petition and
thereby grant 40 days ordinary leave to the prison inmate.
5. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice for all the respondents.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instruction
submitted that the prison inmate was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 & 392 r/w 397 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302
of IPC and to undergo Rigourous Imprisonment for 10 years for the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
offence under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC; that the prison inmate has
completed 25 years of imprisonment and he is eligible for ordinary leave
since he has completed the imprisonment of 10 years imposed for the
offences under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC and that the third respondent
called for report from the Probation Officer, Nanguneri and Inspector of
Police, Kudankulam and they did not recommend the ordinary leave to the
prison inmate. He further submitted that the second respondent rejected
the ordinary leave request on 13.02.2023 and the same was intimated to
the prison inmate on 07.03.2023. He further submitted that in view of the
report of the Probation Officer and the jurisdictional Police, the second
respondent who is competent authority as per Rule 19 of 'The Tamil Nadu
Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' (for the sake of convenience and
clarity, hereinafter referred to as 'TNSS Rules') rejected the representation
for ordinary leave on 13.02.2023 vide Proceedings No.436/cj.2/2023.
He further submitted that the petitioner has not questioned the said
rejection order dated 13.02.2023. Instead, the petitioner is questioning the
communication letter of the third respondent dated 04.09.2023 and
therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly he prayed to
dismiss this Writ Petition.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
7. This Court has considered both side’s submissions and perused
the records.
8. There is no disputation or contestation over the fact that the
prison inmate was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
302 & 392 r/w 397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigourous
Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to
undergo Rigourous Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under
Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC and he has completed imprisonment for 10
years imposed for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC. There is
also no disputation or contestation over the fact that the prison inmate has
been incarcerated for the past 25 years. It is to be noted that the third
respondent has stated inter alia in the impugned order that the prison
inmate is eligible for 40 days ordinary leave since he has completed 24
years of imprisonment.
9. It is also to be noted that the second respondent has rejected the
ordinary leave request on 13.02.2023 vide his Proceedings No.436/cj.
2/2023 by citing the report of the Probation Officer and the jurisdictional
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
police which is the only reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting
the ordinary leave request. It is apposite to state that totally 38 times (34
times without escort and 4 times with escort) emergency leave was
granted to the prison inmate and as on 04.02.2023, totally 129 days
emergency leave has been granted to him. During the said periods, no
untoward incidents happened. The prison inmate returned to the prison
without any deviations. The said fact has not been disputed or contested
by the respondents.
10. As far as the non-recommendation of leave by the Probation
Officer and the jurisdictional police is concerned, it is pertinent to note
that overall, emergency leave has been granted 38 times, by the
respondents to the prison inmate. During the said leave periods, no
untoward incidents happened.
11. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the
petitioner has stated that the presence of the prison inmate is necessary to
discuss and resolve the issues pertaining to their family properties. The
said request neatly fits within (i) & (v) of Rule 20 of TNSS Rules.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
12. Considering the period of incarceration and the fact that overall,
emergency leave has been granted 38 times to the prison inmate and the
prison inmate after the leave period returned to the prison without any
untoward incidents, this Court is of the view that the respondents without
applying their mind, rejected the leave request of the prison inmate. It is
pertinent to note that the main object of granting ordinary leave is to give
opportunity to the prison inmate to reform himself by interacting with his
family members.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant ordinary leave to the
petitioner's brother (the prison inmate). Accordingly, the impugned order
bearing reference No.29/Tha.Ku.2/2023 passed by the third respondent is
set aside. 40 days ordinary leave without escort is granted to the prison
inmate subject to the following conditions:
(a) 40 days of ordinary leave without escort,
commencing from 21.11.2023 to 30.12.2023, is granted to
the prison inmate namely, Anthony Luns Lord, S/o.A.Jesu
Soosai Innasi, Life Convict Prisoner No.29, detained at
Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
(b) the prison inmate shall stay in the address given
in the cause title of this Writ Petition namely, No.158,
Tsunami Colony, Perumanal (P.O.), Chitikulam,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, throughout the
leave period;
(c) the prison inmate shall appear and sign before
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, on all working days at
10.30 a.m. throughout the leave period;
(d) the prison inmate shall execute a bond as per
Rule 26 of TNSS Rules;
(e) the prison inmate shall utilize the 40 days
ordinary leave only for the purpose for which it has been
granted and shall not partake in any other activities;
(f) the prison inmate shall surrender before the third
respondent at or before 05.30 p.m. on 30.12.2023.
(g) the third respondent is directed to file a
compliance report on or before 03.01.2024 before this
Court.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
14. This Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
17.11.2023
Index: Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
Internet: Yes
Speaking order
jen
Note:-
1. Registry is directed to forthwith communicate this order
to Jail Authorities in Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in
official website of this Court without insisting on
certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when
uploaded in official website of this Court will be
watermarked and will also have a QR code.
3. Though this Writ Petition is disposed of, Registry is
directed to post this matter under the caption
'COMPLIANCE REPORT' on 05.01.2024.
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Home,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Madurai Range, Madurai – 625 001.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Palayamkottai.
4.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.,
jen
Pre-Delivery Order made
in
W.P.(MD) No.24656 of 2023
17.11.2023
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
