Madras High Court
Pandiyarajan @ Pandiyaraja vs The Superintendent on 5 March, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
2024:MHC:1286
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:05.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.(MD) No.3614 of 2024
Pandiyarajan @ Pandiyaraja ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai-16. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order No.19819.Tha.Ku.2/2023,
dated 5.1.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to
direct the respondent to grant Ordinary Leave to the Petitioner namely,
Pandiyarajan @ Pandiyaraja in C.P.No.5943, Central Prison, Madurai.\
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Prabha
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi,
Addl.Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
The Writ Petition is filed by the convict being aggrieved by
the rejection of request for grant of ordinary leave by impugned
order dated 5.1.2024 which reads as below:
“,k;kj;jpa rpiwapd; Mas; jz;lid rpiwthrp vz;.
5943 ghz;bauh[d; (v) ghz;bauh[h j/ng khahz;b vd;gtUf;F
mtrufhy tpLg;G Nfhhpa ghh;itapy; fhZk; jpUkjp.kJkpjh
vd;gtuJ kD ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; 29.11.2023 md;W
ngwg;gl;Ls;sJ.
2. Mas; jz;lid rpiwthrp vz;.5943
ghz;bauh[d; (v) ghz;bauh[h j/ng khahz;b vd;gth; Njdp
fhty; epiyaf; Fw;w vz;.918/2016 tof;fpw;F Njdp $Ljy;
khtl;l kw;Wk; tpiuT mkh;T ePjpkd;wk; v];.rp.vz;.76/2017> ehs;
20.01.2020-d; gb r/gp 201 ,.j.r-tpd; fPo; 07 tUlk; fLq;fhty;
jz;lid cld; mguhjk; &.5000/- f/j xU tUlk; nka;f;fhty;
jz;lid kw;Wk; r/gp 302 ,.j.r-tpd; fPo; MAs; jz;lid cld;
mguhjk; &.10000/- f/j xU tUlk; nka;f;fhty; jz;lidAk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(mguhjk; nrYj;jg;gl;lJ) tpjpf;fg;gl;L 20.01.2020 md;W kJiu
kj;jpa rpiwapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L jz;lid fopj;J
tUfpwhh;. ,jd; njhlh;r;rpahf khz;GkpF nrd;id
cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis kJiuapy; Crl.(MD)No.351/2021-d;
gb Nky;KiwaPL nra;Js;shh;.
3. ,e;Neh;tpy;> Nkw;gb rpiwthrpf;F khz;GkpF
nrd;id cah;ePjp kd;wk; kJiu fpis kJiuapy; Nky;KiwaPl;L
tof;F epYitapy; cs;sjhy;> ,r;rpiwthrpf;F jkpo;ehL
jz;lid js;spitj;jy; tpjpfs; - 1982-d; gb tpLg;G toq;f
tpjpfspy; toptif ,y;iy vd;w tptuk; kDjhuUf;F ,jd;
%yk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The life convict by name Pandiyarajan @ Pandiyaraja, son
of Mayandi has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year under Section 201 of I.P.C and
further to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 302
of IPC in S.C.No.76 of 2017, dated 20.01.2020, on the file of
Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni. An appeal has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence and the
same is pending in Crl.A(MD)No.351 of 2021. Whileso, the request for
grant of ordinary leave in view of ailment of the detenu’s wife has not
been entertained based upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982(herein after referred to as the
‘’Rules’’)
4.It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
embargo under Rule 35 of the above Rules cannot be an abosolute
embargo and the rule only specify pending trial and not refer appeal,
and this legal position has been clarified in a neutral citation of this
Court in Latha .vs. The State, reported in 2023 MHC/4502.
5.A perusal of the above said judgment cited by the learned
counsel for ther Petitioner, the same has been rendered on a premise
that an appeal before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave
Petition cannot be construed as pending trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.This Court, while considering the case in hand, find that
pending appeal is a statutory appeal and therefore, Rule 35 of the
above said Rules squarely applies to the present case.In the facts and
circumstances of the case, judgment cited supra is not applicable.
Therefore the reason given by the prison authorities to reject the
request for grant of ordinary leave is in tune with the provisions of law
and therefore this Court finds no illegality or error in the impugned
order.
7.In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. While dismissing
the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that if the Petitioner has any
valid reasons, he has every right to approach the Court where his
appeal is pending seeking for suspension of sentence or interim bail.
If such application is made, no doubt, such application will be
considered on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.]
05.03.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To:
1.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai-16.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
