KRISHNAN NAIR ALIAS MANIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Krishnan Nair alias Maniyan son of Velayudhen Nair who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Central Jail, Trivandrum as convict No. 9266 sent a letter dated 4 -3 -1983 to this court, He stated therein that he had been convicted by the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in S. C. 46 of 1966 on 25 -11 -1969 and was sentenced to life imprisonment, that he was subsequently released, and that he was residing in his house pursuant to such release for more than a year when he was again arrested and sent back to jail. He pleads that in the circumstances he may be released from the prison. Thereupon we took notice of the complaint by him as an Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed notice to the State and also called upon the learned Advocate General to furnish us all materials relating to the premature release of the petitioner and his re -arrest. Accordingly such materials have been made available to us. As stated, the petitioner was undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in the Jail when he happened to be one of those prisoners whose cases were considered for premature release. Prisoners who had run long terms were proposed to be released prematurely. The council of Ministers took a decision on 1 -2 -1980 to grant special remission to such prisoners in the State. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 161 of the Constitution the Governor of Kerala ordered the premature release of 98 prisoners undergoing imprisonment in the various prisons of the State remitting the unexpired portion of their sentences. This order passed by the Governor in exercise of the power under Article 161 of the Constitution was pursuant to the decision taken by the council of Ministers in that behalf. The petitioner here was one of those covered by that order and consequently he was released on 24 -12 -1980.

(2.) IT would appear that it was the practice of the jail authorities to take bonds from those who were being released prematurely to abide by certain conditions. The bond required those who were being prematurely released to be under the supervision of a probation officer for the rest of the term which covered by the sentence or 4 years whichever was shorter. One of the conditions of the bond is said to be that the released prisoner will have to present himself before the Probation Officer and must keep in contact with him periodically. The petitioner here seems to have been under the impression that since he was released he was not under such obligation. Consequently he did not visit the Probation Officer. It appears from the report available in the file of the Regional Assistant Director of Social Welfare, Trivandrum that the petitioner seemed to be under the impression that the Probation Officer was giving him unnecessary trouble by keeping contact with him. This was taken to be a violation of the condition of the bond and on that basis he was arrested forthwith and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, on 6 -4 -1982. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is seen to have remanded him to the Jail on such production. Thus he was back in Jail on 6 -4 -1982. It was nearly one year thereafter that he thought of writing to this court. Action was taken by this court on that petition. The facts ascertained disclose that the Government passed the order cancelling petitioner's remission of sentence on 5 -2 -1982 observing that the Inspector General of Prisons had reported that the petitioner had violated the condition of release and hence the order regarding premature release was being cancelled. Evidently the Government had only the report of the Inspector General of Prisons and the report of the Regional Assistant Director of Social Welfare, Trivandrum accompanying it when it passed the cancellation order and it is not disputed that there were no other materials and not even the response of the petitioner to such report, for, the petitioner was never notified about it.

(3.) THE decision in this case in the light of the facts disclosed is easy though the case has brought up many questions for consideration by the court to which we will advert.