LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-348

ABITHA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On December 12, 2019
Abitha Begum Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provide A Class facility to the petitioner's husband, namely, Rahamathullahkhan, who is a life convict, considering his educational qualifications.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the prayer to provide 'A Class' facility to the petitioner's husband, submitted that earlier, the petitioner's husband was arrested on 27. 11. 1999 in Crime No. 1163/1999 by Coimbatore B-1 Bazaar Police station and suffered conviction in the said case by the Special Court for Exclusive Bomb Blast Cases at Ponnamallee. It is further submitted that presently, the petitioner's husband has been sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to the conviction in S. C. No. 140/2000 under Section 302 IPC and he has been undergoing incarceration for the past 20 years. Since the life convict has completed his degree course in B. A. , Sociology, based on his educational qualification, he is eligible for "A Class" facility as per Rule 225 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), wherein, Rule 225 clearly shows that prisoners shall be eligible for Class A, if they by social status, education or habit of life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living. Therefore, a representation has been given on 22. 10. 2019 seeking A Class facility to the life convict. However, the said representation has not been considered so far and hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel concluded his argument by submitting that in similar line, this Court, by order dated 24. 07. 2019 has granted the relief in HCP No. 245/2019 on the ground that the convict prisoner has undergone seven months of sentence out of one year awarded to him, as per the said Rules. The petitioner has also filed HCP No. 690/2017 for premature release and the said petition is pending before the Principal Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is contended that the same benefit may kindly be extended to the petitioner's husband.