P HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by a person, who was a prisoner in the Bangalore Central prisons at Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore, serving life sentence and whose life sentence had been remitted in terms of a Government order No. HD 164 PRA-98 dated 2-9-1998, which was an order of remission granted by the Governor of the State of Karnataka in exercise of his constitutional powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution of India, petitioner had in fact been released in pursuance of this order on 4-9-1998, but had nevertheless been taken back into custody, made to languish in jail up to 14-8-1999 on which day he was released giving effect to the order of remission only after the petitioner made Herculean efforts to seek for such release by not only representing to various authorities, but also petitioning the National Human Rights Commission to issue directions to the Jail authorities to hold an enquiry about the justification or otherwise for the continued detention of the petitioner. This enquiry resulted in holding that the continued detention of the petitioner was contrary to the remission order dated 2-9-1998 and wherefore the petitioner was to be released immediately. Petitioner is now agitating for payment of damages/compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the illegal detention from 4-9-1998 up to 14-8-1999.

(2.) THIS writ petition was admitted on 14-3-2002 and the respondents who are eight in number were issued with notices of the writ petition. 1st respondent is the State of karnataka, Home Secretary, 2nd respondent is the Director General and Inspector General of Prison, Karnataka State, 3rd respondent by name is B. J. Mallapur, DIG, of Bangalore central Prisons. Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore at that time now retired from services, 4th respondent is B. S. Abbai and then Sr. Jail superintendent, 5th respondent is ranganathaswamy, Writer, Conviction Section at the same Prison, 6th respondent is Sri shankarnarayanan, Asstt. Superintendent, 7th respondent is Sri D. Sangappa, then Chief jailer, Bangalore Central Prison now Jail superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tumkur, and the 8th respondent is the then Jailer, Bangalore Central prisons, at that time, now Jailer at Tumkur sub-Jail, Tumkur.

(3.) WRIT petitioner has, inter alia, urged that though the petitioner had been granted remission of his sentence of life imprisonment in terms of the order of the State Government and the remission given to the petitioner had not only been intimated to the petitioner but also to the members of his family and that when his wife, children and other relatives had come to receive him from the jail premises and to take him back home on the 4th September, 1998; that the respondents 3 to 8 conspired with each other with a common intention to extract money from the petitioner and his relatives (for the wrongful gain for themselves)and the petitioner was continued in detention at the Central Prison, Gandhinagar, bangalore, till 22-9-1998 demanding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for his release; that if the demand is not met the petitioner will be made to suffer further detention in the prison; that the respondents-prison authorities kept the petitioner as prisoner in the Central Prison at gandhinagar, Bangalore, up to 22-9-1998, with the expectation of receiving the illegal gratification and as the petitioner was not in a position to meet this illegal demand the respondent-authorities have clandestinely denied him the benefit of the remission order and he was shifted to New Central Prison, parappana Agrahara, on 22-9-1998 with instructions to undergo entire life sentence, contrary to the release certificate in terms of Annexure-A and thereafter the petitioner had been assigned convict No. 129 at the parappana Agrahara, Central Prison and was kept under detention, without any authority of law or warrant till 14-9-1999 thereby depriving the petitioner of his remission of the remainder portion of the sentence, causing life danger, making him undergo untold misery and mental agony etc. , this was not only to the petitioner but also to the members of his family and the petitioner apprehending danger to his life had made several representations including national Human Rights Commission and other authorities about the violation committed by the respondents of the order of remission granted by the Governor and the release certificate dated 4-9-1998, copy at Annexure-A, along with the terms of conditional release, the certificate indicates that the conditions imposed on such persons like the petitioner, who had been given remission of remainder portion of their life sentence being remitted subject to the conditions which reads as under :-