Disposed

Puli Ramanujamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023WP/14067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking release of her son, convicted for life imprisonment, on the ground that he was a minor at the time of the offence. The court directed the respondents to examine the representation for extending Juvenile Justice Act benefits within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine the petitioner's representation regarding the extension of Juvenile Justice Act benefits to the prisoner within two weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Puli Ramanujamma Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32e6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

N/ONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14067 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Puli Ramanujamma, W/o. Venkata Narsaiah, age 57 Years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. 1 - 28, Tallada^(lr/), Anarugudem (V), Khammam District, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. its Principal Secretary,^{(HomeandPresions} Department), Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶13

z The Director General of Prisions and Correctional Services,^Hyderabad

¶14

J The District Jail Khammam District, rep by its Superintendent ,at^Khammam, lt/edchal Malkajgiri Dist Hyderabad.^.

¶15

4 The Commissioner of Police, Khammam District

¶16

5 The SHO Tallada P. S, Khammam District,^Telangana.

¶17

(R3 C.T. is amended as per C.O. dt. 28.07.2023 in l.A No.2 ot 2O23

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more^{particularly in the nature of} WRIT OF TVANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the^{respondentswho did not} taking any steps to release the^prisoner Puli^{Rama Rao CT. No.1776convictedin} SC No: 156 of 1997, dated 28- 09- 2001, on the^file of^{SessionJudge Khammam} even after well knowing as the^{prisoner wasminor contuning convictionsenlence} arc illegal improper arbitrary ,^{u nco nstitutional,violating the natural justice,} contrary to the Hon'ble Apex Court^{Judgments and without jurisdiction,depriving} the prisoners rights CONSEOUENTLY,^{direct the respondenls torelease}

¶20

petitioners son by name Puli Rama Rao CT N:.^'1 776, the prisoner from the 2"d respondent Jail forthwith immediate effect witl-out any further delay by applying the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgments.

¶21

IA NO:1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC prayin<; that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release petitioners son by name Puli Rama Rao CT No.1 776 the prisoner from the 2"i respondent Jail forthwith immediate effect without any further delay pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayinl; that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitronr--r's son i.e., Puli Rama Rao C.T. No.1776 convited Prisoner at Khammam District Jail while considering the representation Dated 29-08-2023 made by het to the respondents by taking the prisoner's age as minor/ juvenile as records (tathered by the respondents from Revenue, Education Departments while applying the Hon'ble Apex Court, Judgment in this regard.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.L. NARASIMHA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶27

The Cou( made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WI(IT PETITION NO.14057 OF 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The writ petition is file c'l seeking following relief:

¶32

"......fo i.ssur: a Wit or order or direcLion more particularly in the nulure of WRIT OIt MANDAT\II IS declaing the inaction of the respondenls tuho dkl not tctkinq an!/ steps to release the prisoner Rtli Ram.a Ra<t C'l' No. 177(j conuicted in SC ffo, 1 56 of I 997 dated 28 09 2OOI on the JiLa o/ Ses-sion .Iudge Khammam euen c{ter utell knoLuinq as the prisoner tuas minor contuning conuiction sentence urc illegal tnproper arbitrary unconstitutional uiolating the natural^jtLsLice contrary lo the Hon,ble Apex Court Judgments and oithout juisdiction depriuinq the pisoners rights CONSDQUT NTLY direct thc rcspondents to release petitioners son bg name Pu[i Rama Rao C7' No. 1776 the pisone.r from the 2nd respondent ,.lail fonhLuith intnediate effect without ang further dclay bg crpp[qing thc Hon'ble: Apex Courl Judgtnents..^. .. ."

¶33

The case of the pctitioner is that her son i.e. Pulli Rama Rao

¶34

was convicted for life imprisonmer-rt for the offences punishable'

¶35

under Sections 302,376 arld 201 of IPC in SC No.156 of^'1997, dated

¶36

28.09.2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Khammam. Aggrieved by the judgment and clecrec, Criminal Appeal No.1590 of 2001 was filecl before this Court ancl the sanle was dismissed on 17;10.2003 Thereafter', preferred an appeal lr:fore the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the sarrrc was tlismissecl on 02.08.2004. It is thc further case of

¶37

thc petitioner that lrer son was minor at the time of imPosrng

-, ...- * .

F it

serltence einrl llc is t'ntitk'd for thr: [rtneiits Pr.es(.ribec] uncler sectior-r 7(a)(i) of thc JLrv.nilc [,stict: .\ct, 2()00. Hor.r,c't,r, the saitl f.ict rv.rs not br-ought to tirc rroticc of thc clotrrt. sirrce tlic. benelits arrisins out of Juverrile Justicc Act, 2000 was rlot extt'^c1etr kr tlrc pc.titionr-'r, who claims to bt' ,rin.r, thc preso,t trppli6;11.,,-r hns bee, filecl trv the petitioner rclvitro on the jr-rclgnreut of thc Hon,blc. Suprenre Court in Makkella Nagaiah v. State of A;.rdhra pradesh in Writ Petition(s)(Crinrinal) No(s)..129 .f 20,:2, u,hcreirr the Ho,,ble suprenre Court helcl tliat the cluestio, of ju'cnility ca, be r.aised before ar-ry c.urt ancl at ary stace, as prer;cribcri u*clcr scction 7A(1) of thc Juvenilc Justice Act, 2000.

¶42

sincc it is aclmittecl bv trre state that the so. of the petitioner was minor at the time of cturrnittirrr; offcnce, the son of the petitio.er is e.titlecl for tht, bc,.fits of the Juve.ilc Justice Act, 2000. 4 It is the further case of thc pctiti.rrer- that he hacl subn.rittecl a represen tation, datecl 30.08.2023 .. t [rt, f ile of thc rcspondents requesting to considcr the trbove referrc.d orcier of th. Ho,,ble Supremc Court and to extencl the ben:fits anrl pass appropriate orders

¶43

¶44

5 In vit w oi the same, the responclcnts are directecl to

¶45

exanrine tlre reprcscrrtation, clatecl 30.08.2023 submitted bv^the petitioner for cxtc'nrling benefits under the Juvenile Justice^Act,2000 to thc son of the petitiorrer in accorclance with^law within^{a period of}

¶46

two (2) weeks from totlay ancl pass appropriate^orclers

¶47

Accorclinglv, this n,rit pctitior.r is clisposecl of. No^{order as}

¶48

to costs.

¶49

As a scqueI thereto, miscellaneous petitions,^{if any, pcnding}

¶50

shall stand closecl.

¶51

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

//TRUE COPY// i, SECTIONDFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

1 The Principal Secretary,^{(Home and Presions Department),Secretariat at The} State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶55

2 The Director deneral 6f Prisions^{and CorrectionalServices, Hyderabad}

¶56

J The Superintendent ,The Central^{Prison,Charlapally, Charlapally'Medchal} Ir/alkajgiri Dist. Hyderabad.^.

¶57

4 The Co=mmissioner of Police,^{KhammamDistrict}

¶58

5 The SHO Tallada P. S, Khammam^{District,Telangana.}

¶59

6 One CC to Sri G.^{L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶60

7 Two CCs to GP for Home,^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana,at}

¶61

Hyderabad [OUTI 8 Two CD Copies TJ ttds(

¶62

i ) I I I I I I I I I i I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911012023

ORDER

WP.No.14067 ot 2023

1 ir.F, S'rAfe
(
,i: + .,.
J I] \
,J 0 1 l\iLI\J 1';J
.-..)
...--.

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶69

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶70

0,n7,' Lt

Puli Ramanujamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Ramanujamma v. The State of Telangana

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

Dwaraka Nagar Colony Welfare Association, Vs The State of Telangana

Manda Susheela Vs The State of Telangana

Mehmood Raheem Vs The State of Telangana

Venkateswara Theatre, Vs Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Dr .M .Saarah Sandliya @ Madhavi Latha Vs The State Of Telangana

Sensation Sunshine, Vs State of Telangana