Kalarani v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Prisons,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Kalarani .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Vellore.
2.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Cuddalore.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2023 and to grant one month leave to the petitioner's husband namely, Apple (a) Sivaraman S/o.Jeganathan, aged about 44 years, Ct.No.14615, now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner :
Ms.S.Nadhiya For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor 1\10
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned writ petition has been filed in this Court on 26.06.2023 and the nucleus of the captioned writ petition is a 'representation dated 15.06.2023' [hereinafter 'said representation' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] sent by the writ petitioner to the respondents.
2. Factual matrix in a nut shell is that the writ petitioner's spouse one Apple (a) Sivaraman is serving sentence having been convicted by Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.80 of 2012 vide conviction / sentence dated 27.06.2013 for alleged offences under Sections 302, 392 read with 397 of 'Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].
3. Ms.S.Nadhiya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner's husband [hereinafter 'convict prisoner' for the sake of convenience] has been incarcerated for more than 11 years, thus 2\10
far he has been given emergency leave more than 15 times and on all occasions leave has been availed without any untoward incident.
4. Adverting to the said representation, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that ordinary leave has now been sought under Rule 20(ii) of the 'Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience] which reads as follows: '20.Grounds for the grant of ordinary leave. -... (i)...
(ii) to make arrangements for the admission of the children in the school or college;
(iii)...'
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for both respondents. Learned Prosecutor on instructions submitted that said representation has since been rejected in and by 'order 3\10
dated 21.06.2023 bearing Reference No.10311/j.F.2/2023 made by the second respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].
7. Though the captioned writ petition is for a mandamus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we deem it appropriate to test the impugned order. Owing to the limited legal perimeter within which writ petition on hand turns perambulates, main writ petition was taken up with the consent of both sides.
8. A careful perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that Rule 21(b) of the said Rules is the sole ground on which leave has been negatived. To be noted, Rule 21(b) of the said Rules reads as follows: '21.Non-eligibility for ordinary leave.-...
(a)...
(b)Prisoners sentenced under sections 392 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860). (c)...'
4\10
9. Be that as it may, as already alluded to supra, leave has been sought under Rule 20(ii) of the said Rules i.e., for making arrangements for admission of children in school. The convict prisoner has on an earlier occasion been granted leave by another coordinate Hon'ble Bench of this Court in and by order dated 19.11.2019 made in HCP No.2403 of 2019.
10. This Court is informed that the convict prisoner has been granted leave multiple times between 2017 and 2023. The table in this regard reads as follows:
5\10
6\10
11. Adverting to the aforementioned table, learned counsel points out that after mid 2018, the convict prisoner has been given leave without escort.
12. We are of the considered view that this is a fit case in which the executive arm should have taken Rule 40 route of the said Rules. To be noted, Rule 40 of the said Rules makes it clear that the Executive arm has ample and adequate powers to exempt any one from any or all the provisions of said Rules.
13. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far we make the following order: (i) Impugned order dated 21.06.2023 is set aside;
(ii) Convict prisoner (Convict No.14615) is granted 30 days ordinary leave without escort. To be noted, 30 days ordinary leave shall be from 05.07.2023 to 04.08.2023 (both days inclusive); 7\10
(iii) Convict prisoner shall sign before the jurisdictional Police Station (Panruti Police Station) every Monday at 10.30 am;
(iv) The Convict prisoner shall surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore by dusk i.e., by 05.30 pm on 04.08.2023.
14. Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directives. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Though captioned writ petition is disposed of, list the matter in the cause list under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORT' on 07.08.2023.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 03.07.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Upload forthwith Issue order by 04.07.2023 - Lunchtime TK 8\10
To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Vellore.
2.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Cuddalore.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
9\10
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK 03.07.2023 10\10