REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJAMMAL Appellant

V/S

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

YESU V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
L. WASIB KHAN V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
LATHA V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
NANAVATI V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SARAT CHANDRA RABHA VS. KHAGENDRANATH NATH [REFERRED TO]
MARU RAM BHIMWA RAM SHANKER KRISHNA RAGHUBIR SINGH RAMPUJA SINGH NIRBHAI SINGH BALKRISHAN GUPTA VENY SINGH BABULAL GAUTAM OM PRAKASH NAGEBHUSHANAM PATNAIK RAGHUNATH SINGH JAGIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY:MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DADU TULSIDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. PREM RAJ [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRESSTEEL AND FABRICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD VS. LLOYDS INSULATION INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SINGH DAGAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VEERAMCHANENI RAGHAVENDRA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
THIRUMALAREDDY THAMASAMMA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS VS. YESU ALIAS VELAIYAN & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SALIL SABHLOK [REFERRED TO]
MANOKARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
K. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, [REFERRED TO]
N.BHUVANESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLES MOVEMENTS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
T.RAMALAKSHMI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions raise a common question as to whether a mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be issued directing release of a convict prisoner on ordinary leave notwithstanding his ineligibility to avail such leave by virtue of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

(2.) W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1752 of 2026 has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in No.964/Utha. 2/2025, dtd. 22/9/2025 and for a consequential direction to the first and second respondents to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort, to the petitioner's son, who was convicted for offences under Ss. 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985" (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act" for brevity) by the Additional District Judge (E.C. Court), Pudukottai, in C.C.No.30 of 2022 and was sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment by judgment dtd. 26/5/2023. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.507 of 2023 and while confirming the conviction, this Court modified the sentence to five years by judgment dtd. 15/10/2025. Accordingly, the convict is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a representation seeking for 21 days ordinary leave without escort on the ground that the petitioner suffered from severe chest pain and he also suffers from various ailments and he has to take immediate treatment. For that purpose, an ancestral property must be sold to augment funds. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for 21 days ordinary leave without escort for his son.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJAMMAL Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address