REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

LATHA Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

L.WASIB KHAN VS. THE STATE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
S.SANTHOSAM VS. STATE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
K M NANAVATI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA P C HADIA UNION OF INDIA VS. MAJJI JANGAMAYYA:V N SRIVASTAVA:THE UNION OF INDIA:G RAMANATHAN:A BHASHYA M [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT CO LIMITED STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MENT COMPANY LIMITED:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT COMPANY LIMITED:RESERVE BANK OF INDIA:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENF COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P D AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH R D DEGAONKAR AND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VS. DEEPAK MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
C RANGASWAMAIAH VS. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [REFERRED TO]
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS VS. YESU ALIAS VELAIYAN & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
K. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN VS. MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG MITTAL VS. SHAILY MISHRA MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
SHAH FAESAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE VS. MUKESH GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL VS. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M. JEYAMMAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband, Thirupathirajan, is a life convict prisoner (CP.No.4432) and detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. When the petitioner had made an application on 13/1/2023 seeking for grant of 40 days ordinary leave under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, her request was rejected through the impugned order dtd. 31/1/2023, on the ground that the Madras High Court, in its order passed in W.P.No.10265 of 2021 dtd. 18/2/2022 (L.Wasib Khan Vs. The State and others - 2022 (2) CTC 598), had held that when an appeal against conviction is pending, the suspension of sentence should be sought for only before the Appellate Court. The rejection order is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The core issue that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the pendency of an appeal against conviction, before the Appellate Court, can be cited as an embargo for rejection of a request for grant of leave under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "1982 Rules")?

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 35 of the Suspension of Sentence Rules prohibits grant of leave to a prisoner against whom a case is pending trial and therefore, the same cannot be equated to the pendency of an appeal.

Click here to view full judgment.

LATHA Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address