CHINNATHAMBI Vs. DIRECTOR INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a convict, convicted and sentenced by a judgment dtd. 4/1/2025 and admitted in Central Prison, Trichy on the aforesaid date. He had made an application seeking leave of 40 days without escort and that application has come to be rejected by way of the impugned order dtd. 26/8/2025. Aggrieved, petitioner is before us, by way of the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner argues that the impugned order has not taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been granted Emergency Leave on several occasions. Moreover, reference to Sec. 224 IPC is misplaced as the petitioner had absconded for a period of three months in the year 2005 and his conduct has been good thereafter. He relies, for this argument, on Circular dtd. 15/12/2017 bearing No.26594/PS.4/2017. As per this Circular, the period for which the convict had absconded must be within the last five years preceding the date of commencement of leave and hence the impugned order has to be set aside.

(3.) Another ground raised by Mr.Saifulla relates to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Superintendent of Prison to pass the impugned order. Referring to the decision in Dhanalakshmi v Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (Prison IV) and Ors [W.P.(MD) No.20720 of 2023 dtd. 8/9/2023], the learned counsel would argue that it is only the DIG, who is vested with the authority to consider the grant of leave. He specifically relies on paragraphs 3.2 and 4 of the aforesaid decision.