P V BAKTHAVATCHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is by one P. V. Bakthavatchalam, as Advocate who claims that he is very much interested in protecting the Civil and Democratic rights of citizens of India and particularly the State of Tamil Nadu, and as such, as a Public Interest Litigation, he is filing this petition to redress the sufferings of two prisoners who are kept in illegal custody in Palayamkottai Central Prison.

(2.) One Mr. David and one Mr. Raju were prisoners bearing Convict Nos.5504 and 5510 respectively confined in Central Prison, Palyamkottai. Both were imprisoned to undergo imprisonment for life under Ss. 396, 460 and 302, I.P.C. on 25-3-1975. They had suffered imprisonment for 151/2 years calculated from the date of their arrest on 1-4-1974. On 14-4-1989 the Government of Tamil Nadu ordered release of life convicts who had by then completed 14 years of imprisonment in pursuance of G.O. Telex No. 2875/Pr.IV/89-6 dated 14-4-1989 and after their executing a bond they were duly released. According to the petitioners, since then they started a new lease of life, and alliance for each of them for marriage also is almost settled. When they were settling down to normal life, on 9-6-1989 the prison officials headed by the Jailor of Palyamkottai Central Prison, on the pretext that the persons were required in the prison for receiving the fund provided by the Government for their rehabilitation took them to the prison and there they were manhandled and locked up inside the jail. They were informed that they were not qualified for release under the G.O.Ms. No. 1762 (Pr. IV) dated 20-7-1989 and therefore they were brought back. The action of the authorities is mala fide and their detention since 9-6-1989 is illegal. The convict David's mother had sent a petition to the Supreme Court and that had been sent by the Supreme Court to the Madras High Court but no action had been taken thereon. Then David sent a fresh petition to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, Madras, which had been referred to the Legal Aid Board and Raju also had sent a petition to the Legal Aid Board. The petitioner wanted to place before the Court all these facts so that proper steps would be taken for the release of the convicts in illegal custody. On these allegations the petitioner prayed for a direction to the first respondent - the Government of Tamil Nadu and the second respondent-Inspector General of Prisons to produce the persons before this Court and set them at liberty. It is further prayed for directing the first respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for each of the prisoners for their suffering due to illegal detention. It is also prayed for directing the fourth respondent -Registrar, High Court, Madras, to frame a scheme to mete out speedy justice to the people like the said Prisoners.

(3.) The writ petition is resisted by respondents 1 to 3 by filing a common counter in which it is contended that the Government in Telex No.28759/ Pri.IV/89-6, dated 14-4-1989 had ordered release of all lifers who had completed 14 years of actual sentence except those who are not eligible for premature release as per the G.O. Ms. No. 1762, Home, dated 20-7-1987. As per that G.O., the two prisoners in question were not eligible for premature release they having been convicted under S.396, I.P.C. but the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palyamlittai inadvertently released them simply because they had undergone 14 years of actual sentence without verifying whether they are persons eligible for release under the said Government order. Since they were wrongly release the Inspector General of Prisons in his memorandum No. 4719/ W1/89, dated 25-5-1989 had ordered re-arrest of the above two persons as per paragraph 567 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Vol. IV. In pursuance of that order the convicts were brought back to prison on 10-6-1989 and it is not true that they were manhandled. It is also contended that premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Regarding the lifers Government are the only authority to remit the unexpired portion of the sentence and order release of the prisoners under S. 432, Cr.P.C. It is further contended that imprisonment for life means imprisonment throughout life of the prisoner. Even though the two convicts have undergone 20 years of imprisonment including the remissions they cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. In these circumstances no question of payment of compensation arises. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.