A.M. SHERIFF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of the convict. The convict is under incarceration for more than 20 years having committed offences under The Explosives Substances Act and The Indian Arms Act, besides offences under IPC. On earlier occasions, the convict was given emergency leave for 3 days. Now, the petitioner seeks leave for the convict in order to resolve the financial problems being faced by the family.

(2.) Though, the reason assigned is not seriously disputed, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the Rule 22 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension Rules, there is embargo for the convict to be considered for ordinary leave.

(3.) We do not find any reasons as to why the petitioner cannot be given ordinary leave. Rule 22(1) would not come in the way when the power has been delegated to the State Government by the Central Government. Even assuming that the power can be exercised only on certain contingencies, inasmuch as the convict having completed sentence for the offence under the Arms Act and The Explosives and Substances Act, the said restriction would not be available any longer. This court also considered similar issues and granted leave.