SHANTHAKUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramakrishnan is undergoing life imprisonment as he was found guilty under Section 302, IPC. The wife of the said Ramakrishnan by name Shanthakumari has filed the above petition, contending that her husband has completed 10 years, 5 months and 12 days of his imprisonment as on 19th October, 2000 and that the benefits conferred on some prisoners in G.O. Ms. No. 1012, dated 14.9.2000, Home (Prison-IV) Department, should be extended to him as well.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that till the filing of this petition, prisoner Ramakrishnan came out on parole on several occasions (the total period being 345 days) and that as per the Ruling of the Supreme Court in Fulchand Shah v. Union of INdia , W.P. (Cr.)248 of 1998, the parole period does not interrupt the period of detention. Or in other words, the petitioner in arriving at the total period of imprisonment viz., 10 years, 5 months and 12 days, has also included the parole of 345 days.

(3.) A. To answer the question as to whether a prisoner can come out on parole and if so what is the procedure -to be followed and what is the effect of the same, the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 has been enacted. As already pointed out, it is made clear therein that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is only a concession and further that there are two kinds of leave viz., Emergency Leave and Ordinary Leave. Emergency Leave is granted to enable a prisoner to go out on parole when a sudden necessity arises such as death or illness of a close relative mentioned in those Rules. Similarly, ordinary leave is granted for certain reasons and the same are enumerated in Rule 20. 7.B. Rule-36 is to the effect that the day on which the prisoner was released and the day on which he was readmitted shall both be counted as days of imprisonment but the period of leave shall not be taken as period of sentence undergone by the prisoner. What is to be noted is that in the said Rule, the Rule-making Authority used the word "leave" which has been explained and defined under Rule-2 to mean both Emergency and Ordinary Leave. Or in other words, if really the Rule-making Authority intended that Rule to apply only to Emergency Leave, then they would have made it clear. 7.C. It is true that while in Form-IA viz., the bond which a prisoner has to execute while going on emergency leave, he agrees to the period of his absence from the prison being treated as suspension of sentence and such a clause is absent in the surety bond in Form II, which the prisoner, who goes on ordinary leave should execute, but that would not defeat the clear provisions found in Rule-36 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. 7.D. In fact, in the Jail Manual also, there is a specific provision. Clause-239 (Chapter XVI) of the Jail Manual mentions as to what are the cases where the period spent by prisoners outside the prison shall not count towards sentence. It reads thus:-