Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Muthulakshmi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, which rejected the request for 30 days ordinary leave for her son, Kalidoss, a life convict lodged in Madurai Central Prison. The convict sought leave to attend his ailing mother and make arrangements for his children's future. The prison authority rejected the application on the ground that the convict had involved himself in a criminal case, Crime No.67 of 2022, while on an earlier parole. The offences alleged were under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that even after the registration of the said case, this Court had granted the convict ten days ordinary leave by order dated 03.07.2024 in W.P(MD)No.13002 of 2024 and the convict had surrendered in time without any infraction. It was further submitted that the criminal case had been disposed of on account of a petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner's son. To verify this claim, the Court adjourned the matter and required the production of the judgment. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the petitioner's counsel furnished a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.102/2023 dated 26.06.2023 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi. Perusal of that judgment revealed that the petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C was dismissed on 31.05.2023, and the trial proceeded. The prosecution evidence was recorded, and the court found the accused guilty, convicting and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment. Thus, the criminal case did not end in acquittal or compounding but in a conviction. The Court noted that the earlier leave granted by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13002 of 2024 was passed without knowledge of this conviction. Rule 20(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, disqualifies a convict who has misused earlier parole or leave from being granted further ordinary leave. Since the life convict had misused the earlier parole and was convicted, he fell squarely within the disqualification. The High Court held that the impugned order rejecting leave was correct and did not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. No costs were imposed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole - Disqualification - Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, Rule 20(vi) - The petitioner, mother of a life convict, sought ordinary leave for 30 days for the convict to attend to an ailing mother and arrange for children's future - The prison authority rejected the request on the ground that the convict had misused earlier parole by committing an offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC while on parole - Upon verification, the Court found that the convict was convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment in C.C.No.102/2023, making him ineligible under Rule 20(vi) - Held that the earlier High Court order granting leave in W.P(MD)No.13002 of 2024 was passed without knowledge of this conviction, and therefore the impugned rejection order is legal and does not call for interference (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prison authorities were justified in rejecting the convict's request for ordinary leave on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case during an earlier parole period, especially when he had subsequently been granted leave by the High Court
Final Decision
The Court perused the judgment in C.C.No.102/2023 and found that the petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 31.05.2023, and after trial, the convict was found guilty and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The earlier High Court order granting leave was passed without knowledge of this conviction. Since the convict had misused the earlier parole and was convicted, he fell within the disqualification under Rule 20(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was held legal and the writ petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Rule 20(vi) of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules
- 1982
- disqualification for ordinary leave
- misuse of parole
- life convict convicted during earlier parole ineligible for leave
