R JEEVANANDAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Order of Bench delivered by ) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for the issue of a habeas, to direct the respondents who are respectively the state of Tamil Nadu represented by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Madras, and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy, to set at liberty the petitioner R. Jeevanandam, convict No. 81431, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy on the ground, that he had completed more than 14 years of incarceration and is, therefore, entitled to be released.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he was convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. in S.C. No.18 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Session, East Tanjore at Nagapattinam, by judgment dated 23-10-1979 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He claims to have undergone 11 years and six months in prison and he is further entitled to two years remission granted by the State Government for all life convicts, for Periyar Centenary and in honour of late C.N.Annadurai. He would, therefore, state that he had completed 13 years and six months in prison and if that period is taken along with the time spent by him as a remand prisoner, he would be eligible to be considered for premature release. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, it has been stated, that the convict (petitioner) has completed 10 years and 11 months of actual sentence as on 1-12-1990 and he has been granted remissions of one year each on the occasion of Periyar Centenary and in honour of Dr. Perarignar Annadurai. He has also earned so far 160 days of ordinary remission. Totally, the convict had completed 13 years 4 months and 20 days of sentence. As per Rule 341 of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II, the cases of prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life on or after 18-12-1978, shall be placed before the Advisory Board, only if they have served 14 years of imprisonment. The petitioner attains eligibility on 21-12-1993 , for consideration of premature release by the Advisory Board.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner is unable to give us specific details of the period of remand, pending trial. Equally, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not able to satisfy us as to how the dt.21-12-1993 had been arrived at, for consideration of premature release. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear and all that is required is its application by the prison authorities. On the scope of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code in Bhagirath vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1985 SC 1050, while overruling its own decision in Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 SC 1439.the Apex Court observed that