Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of a life convict, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a certiorarified mandamus to quash an order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the second respondent rejecting the detenu’s application for thirty days ordinary leave without escort, and to direct grant of such leave. The detenu was originally acquitted by the trial court on 01.09.2009, but on appeal by the State, he was convicted on 07.12.2021 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which remained pending. The detenu was taken into custody on 23.03.2022 and subsequently applied for ordinary leave under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, claiming eligibility after completing three years of imprisonment. The second respondent rejected the application on the grounds that the detenu had not actually undergone three years of imprisonment and that his SLP was pending. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that under Rule 22, the detenu was entitled to ordinary leave, and that pendency of the SLP could not be a valid ground for rejection in light of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ramalakshmi v. State. The State respondents contended that on the date of application, the detenu had served only 2 years, 4 months, and 14 days of imprisonment, thus not satisfying the mandatory three-year requirement under Rule 22. They also conceded that pendency of the SLP was no longer a ground for rejection following the Full Bench judgment. The High Court held that the detenu had not completed three years of imprisonment as required by Rule 22, thereby making the rejection order sustainable on that sole ground. However, the court clarified that once the detenu completes the three-year period, any future representation for ordinary leave must be considered without citing the pendency of appeal or SLP, as per the Full Bench decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prisons and Prisoners - Ordinary Leave - Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, Rule 22 - The detenu must have completed three years of imprisonment to be eligible for ordinary leave - The court found that on the date of application, the detenu had undergone only 2 years, 4 months, and 14 days of imprisonment, thus he did not meet the eligibility criteria under Rule 22 - Held, rejection of the application for ordinary leave was sustainable on that sole ground (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Prisons and Prisoners - Ordinary Leave - Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, Rule 22 - Pendency of appeal or special leave petition before the Supreme Court is not a valid ground to reject an application for ordinary leave - The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramalakshmi v. State decided that pendency of appeal cannot be cited to reject ordinary leave - Held, once the detenu completes the three-year imprisonment period, any future representation shall be considered without citing pendency of appeal (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of ordinary leave under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 was valid on the ground that the detenu had not completed three years of imprisonment, and whether pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court can be a ground to reject ordinary leave
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of. The rejection order was upheld as the detenu had not completed the required three-year imprisonment period. It was clarified that once the detenu completes three years, any future representation shall be considered without citing pendency of appeal, as per the Full Bench decision. Connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rule 22 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules
- 1982 mandates completion of three years imprisonment for ordinary leave eligibility
- Pendency of appeal or Special Leave Petition cannot be a ground to reject ordinary leave as per Full Bench decision in Ramalakshmi v. State
