Allowed

Panchavarnam v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC1 Apr 2014HCP(MD)/1352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of a wife seeking premature release for her husband detained for 13 years, this court allowed the petition. The court held that a three-day parole overstay does not disentitle a prisoner to benefits under G.O. 1155/2008, directing the respondents to produce and release the detenu forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to set the detenu Velu @ Veluchamy at liberty forthwith unless required to be incarcerated in another case.

Panchavarnam Vs the Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01.04.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶5

H.C.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2013

Panchavarnam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

¶10

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison) Department, T.N.Government Chief Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Additional Director General of Police/

¶12

Inspector General of Prisons, C.M.D.A.Towers II,

¶13

No.1, Gandhi Irvin Road,

¶14

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Prisons

¶16

Central Prison, Madurai – 625 016.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu Velu @ Veluchami S/o.Karuppiah Konar C.P.No.2265, presently lodged in Madurai Central Prison and set him at liberty forthwith as per G.O.(Ms)No.1155/Home (Prison IV) Department/2008 dated 11.09.2008.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.)

¶23

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Velu @ Veluchami https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S/o.Karuppiah Konar and set him at liberty as per the benefits granted in G.O.(Ms)No.1155/Home (Prison IV) Department/2008

¶24

¶25

dated 11.09.2008.

¶26

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the wife of the detenu/prisoner and he has been arrayed as one of the accused in Sessions Case No.64 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, wherein he has been found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also found guilty under various sections. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the detenu/prisoner/accused as appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.738 of 1989 on the file of the High Court and the same has been dismissed on 26.04.2000. Further it is stated in the petition that from the date of Judgment of the trial Court (19.07.1989), the detenu/prisoner is in custody. Under the said circumstances, as per G.O.(Ms)No.1155/Home (Prison IV) Department/2008 dated 11.09.2008, he is entitled to get premature release.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has simply reiterated the averments made in the petition and also the benefits granted in G.O.(Ms)No.1155.

¶28

In the counter filed on the side of the respondents it is stated that the detenu/prisoner has been allowed to go on parole. But he has been overstayed for a period of three days. Under the said circumstances, he is not entitled to get premature release.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also put forth his argument only on the basis of averments made in the counter.

¶30

The only reason given on the side of the respondents for making objection to the present petition is that the detenu/prisoner has overstayed for a period of three days.

¶31

It is an admitted fact that from 19.07.1989 the detenu/prisoner is in custody.

¶32

It has already been settled in various decisions by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court that mere overstay of three days cannot be a reason for rejecting this type of petition. Under the said circumstances, the contention put forth on the side of the respondents cannot be accepted.

¶33

It has already been pointed out that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detenu/prisoner has been in custody for more than a period of 13 years. It is also equally an admitted fact that as per G.O.(Ms) No.1155/Home (Prison IV) Department/2008 dated 11.09.2008, if a

¶34

¶35

person has been in custody for a period of seven years, as per the said Government Order, he is entitled to get premature release. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the present petition is liable to be allowed.

¶36

In fine, this Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to set the detenu/prisoner by name Velu @ Veluchamy at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(P & A)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison) Department, T.N.Government Chief Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

2.The Additional Director General of Police/ Inspector General of Prisons, C.M.D.A.Towers II, No.1, Gandhi Irvin Road,

¶44

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Madurai – 625 016.

¶46

4.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

+2cc to Mr.R.Anand Advocate, Sr.No. 19612,19788

¶48

¶49

AA/07.04.2014/3p- 7c/

¶50

H.C.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2013 01.04.2014

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Panchavarnam v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchavarnam v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Abdul Rahman Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sivansakthi @ Umaiyan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthu Alias Muthulakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Tharini Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Kodeeshwari Vs the Director General of Police

P.Roopavathi Vs the Superintendent of Police