Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M.Veeran @ Venkatesan, a life convict, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (two counts) for the murder of his wife and relative. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a direction that he shall not be released till the rest of his life. On appeal, the High Court in Crl.A.No.305 of 2022 set aside the portion directing imprisonment for the rest of life and confirmed the life imprisonment. The petitioner thereafter applied for premature release under the remission policy contained in G.O.(Ms.) No.430 dated 11.08.2023. The first respondent rejected his application by G.O.(D).No.1153 dated 26.09.2024. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The court found that the Government Order did not consider the appellate court's modification and the petitioner's eligibility under the remission policy. The court held that the order suffered from non-application of mind and was unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the Government Order and directed the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of Government Order - The petitioner challenged the Government Order rejecting his premature release. The court held that the Government Order suffered from non-application of mind as it did not consider the appellate court's modification of sentence and the petitioner's eligibility under the remission policy. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence - Life Imprisonment - G.O.(Ms.) No.430, Home (Prison - IV) Department dated 11.08.2023 - The petitioner, a life convict, sought premature release under the remission policy. The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith as he had completed the required period and the appellate court had set aside the direction for imprisonment for the rest of life. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Order rejecting the petitioner's premature release under the remission policy is sustainable when the appellate court had set aside the direction for imprisonment for the rest of life and the petitioner had completed the required period of incarceration.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.1153 dated 26.09.2024, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith.
Law Points
- Remission policy
- life imprisonment
- non-application of mind
- Article 226
- G.O.(Ms.) No.430 dated 11.08.2023
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 441
W.P.No.34005 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.36823 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Mr.P.Pugalenthi for Petitioner, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj (Additional Public Prosecutor) for Respondents
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; The Director General of Police and Director General of Prisons & Correctional Service, Chennai; The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash a Government Order rejecting premature release and to direct release of the petitioner.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of G.O.(D).No.1153 dated 26.09.2024 and a direction to the respondents to release him immediately under G.O.(Ms.) No.430 dated 11.08.2023.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for premature release under the remission policy was rejected by the Government Order dated 26.09.2024.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in S.C.No.297 of 2010 convicted the petitioner under Section 302 IPC (two counts) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a direction that he shall not be released till the rest of his life. The High Court in Crl.A.No.305 of 2022 set aside the portion directing imprisonment for the rest of life and confirmed the life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the Government Order rejecting the petitioner's premature release is sustainable when the appellate court had set aside the direction for imprisonment for the rest of life?
Whether the Government Order suffers from non-application of mind?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Government Order did not consider the appellate court's modification of sentence and his eligibility under the remission policy.
The respondents opposed the petition, but the court found the Government Order lacked application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi
A Government Order rejecting premature release must consider the appellate court's modification of sentence and the convict's eligibility under the remission policy; failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court therefore, has no power to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment with a condition that he shall not be released till his last breath.
Hence, we aside the portion of the finding of the learned Trial Judge which directs that the appellant shall not be released till his last breath.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court in S.C.No.297 of 2010 on 08.10.2010. He appealed to the High Court in Crl.A.No.305 of 2022, which modified the sentence on 23.02.2024. He then applied for premature release under G.O.(Ms.) No.430 dated 11.08.2023. The first respondent rejected his application by G.O.(D).No.1153 dated 26.09.2024. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, and the court disposed it on 27.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302
