Suspension Of Sentence Rules| Convict Who Completed 6 Years & Not Exceeding 14 Years Of Imprisonment Entitled To 28 Days Ordinary Leave: Madras HC
Finding that the detenue, the petitioner's husband, has completed ten years and has not exceeded fourteen years of imprisonment, the Madras High Court held that the detenue would be entitled for 28 days of ordinary leave, in accordance with the amended Rule 22(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
The High Court held so while considering a petition by the wife of the detenue/petitioner, seeking direction to the respondents to grant pre-mature leave for 40 days without escort to the detenu who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
The Division Bench of Justice M.S Ramesh and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that “Under the amended Rule 22(2)(c) of the Rules, the convict, who has completed 6 years of imprisonment and not exceeding 14 years of imprisonment, would be entitled for grant of 28 days of ordinary leave.
Advocate R. Narayanan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas APP A. Thiruvadikumar appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner had sought for grant of ordinary leave for her husband, who is a life convict prisoner. Her request was rejected by the Superintendent (third respondent) on the ground that while her husband was earlier granted emergency leave for three days, he had absconded and accordingly, proceedings were initiated for an offence under Section 224 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner had approached the High Court.
After considering the submission, the Bench found that the case in Crime No.296/2019 had culminated into S.T.C.No.604/2022, in which the petitioner's husband was acquitted through a judgment by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.
The Bench found from a perusal of the Circular of the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons dated Dec 15, 2017 that the Circular does not state as to what is the sanctity of an acquittal order passed in cases of offence under Section 224 IPC.
Apparently, the Bench found that when a convict has been subjected to criminal proceedings and has been duly tried and acquitted, he cannot be termed to have committed an offence under Section 224 IPC.
“If that be so, the Circular of the Inspector General of Prisons, insofar as it relates to the term “faced cases under Section 224 IPC”, would only refer to case of a person, who has been convicted for the offence”, added the bench.
Thus, the Bench stated that the reason assigned by the respondents for rejection of leave to the detenue by placing reliance on the Circular of the Inspector General of Prisons, may not be correct.
The Bench observed from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition seeking for leave for her husband, that owing to her poor financial status, the petitioner is unable to pay the school fees of her son and therefore, seeks for the presence of her husband to arrange money from his friends or relatives for their expenses.
Therefore, referring to Rule 20 which provides for grant of ordinary leave to a prisoner on various circumstances, the High Court directed the second respondent to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband for a period of 28 days.
Cause Title: Kavitha v. State and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023/MHC/3788]
Click here to read/download the Order
