Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 37 (MAD)

Sivagami v. Superintendent of Jail

2004-01-23

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2004
Judgment :- When the matter was called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even though, Mr. Karuppiah, learned counsel appeared for the learned Public Prosecutor, he is not ready. Hence, I am constrained to go through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the counter filed by the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is the wife of Mr.R.Dhanraj, S/o. Mr. S.Rathinam has filed this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for a direction to the respondent to release her husband now confined at Central Prison, Vellore – 632 002 and set him at liberty forthwith. 3. According to the petitioner, even though her husband was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., in S.C.No.199 of 1991, on appeal in C.A.No.488 of 1992, this Court while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to eight years rigourous imprisonment. The petitioner further contended that taking into consideration of the period already undergone by her husband in the judicial custody and jail custody, he had already completed the detention period and therefore he should be released forthwith. The petitioner further contended that taking into consideration of the period already undergone by her husband in the judicial custody and jail custody, he had already completed the detention period and therefore he should be released forthwith. According to the petitioner, the period undergone by her husband is as follows:- “Particulars Days First detention between judicial custody and Bail (30.06.1992 to 19.07.1995) 3 Y 0 M 19 D Second detention in judicial custody after Hon’ble High Court’s Judgment 1 Y 9 M 04 D (07.03.2001 tp 10.12.2002) ----------------- Total days spent in Jail Custody 4 Y 9 M 23 D Add – Remission period for the year 1993 6 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 1994 vide G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 23.02.1994 6 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 1996 vide G.O.Ms.No.1342 dated 12.09.1996 6 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 1997 vide G.O.Ms.No.1163 dated 12.08.1997 9 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.1259 dated 16.09.1999 6 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 2000 vide G.O.Ms.No.1013 dated 14.09.2000 6 M 0 D Add – Remission for the year 2001 vide G.O.Ms.No.841 dated 12.09.2001 6 M 0 D Add – Remission period for the year 2002 6 M 0 D Add – Remission given by Jail Superintendent for good conduct during 1992-1993 1 M 18 D Add – Remission given by Jail Superintendent for good conduct during 2001-Aug 2002 1 M 14 D Add – Remission given by S.P for good conduct during 2002 1 M 0 D --------------- 9 Y 4 M 25 D Less – Period availed on Parde 0 Y 3 M 15 D --------------- Total Sentence undergone as on 10.12.2002 9 Y 0 M 23 D --------------- The petitioner further claims that as per the above details her husband is in illegal detention as on 10.12.2002 itself by one year one month and 10 days. Hence, she claimed that her husband may be directed to be released forthwith. 4. The respondent, denying the contentions of the petitioners has given the following the details: "Date of Sentence 30.06.1992 Add eight years 8 ---------- 29.06.2000 Pre Trial Period (-) 22 days ---------- 07.06.2000 19.07.1995 released on bail by High Court order in Crl.M.P.No.2152/95 in 2057 days C.A.No.488/92. Hence, she claimed that her husband may be directed to be released forthwith. 4. The respondent, denying the contentions of the petitioners has given the following the details: "Date of Sentence 30.06.1992 Add eight years 8 ---------- 29.06.2000 Pre Trial Period (-) 22 days ---------- 07.06.2000 19.07.1995 released on bail by High Court order in Crl.M.P.No.2152/95 in 2057 days C.A.No.488/92. Bail at large, re admitted on 07.03.2001 ----------- 24.01.2006 Interim Bail (28.04.93 to 27.05.1993) (+)28 days ------------ 21.02.2006 Govt., Parole 17.03.95 to 31.05.1995 (+)75 days ------------ Normal date of release 07.05.2006 Jail remission earned from 01.07.1992 to 18.05.1995 144 days Special remission as per G.O. Ms.No.296 Home (Pri-IV) 00-06-00 months Dept., dated 20.02.1993 G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 23.02.1994 00-06-00 months Released on bail 19.07.95 and recommitted to prison 07.03.01 G.O.Ms.No.841 dated 12.09.2001 00-06-00 months Jail remission earned from 07.03.2001 to 30.11.2002 172 days Jail remission earned upto 30.11.2002 316 days Total GO remission 00-06months – 01 year Therefore total remission earned so far 16 D 04 M 02 Y His release date approximately 16.04.2002 Remission likely to be earned 00-02 months Probable date of release 22.10.2003" 5. According to the respondents, the Government issued a clarification order in G.O.Ms.No.409 Home (Pri-IV) Dept., Chennai 15.05.2002, which runs as follows:- " The special remission sanctioned by the Government on such occasion will not be admissible in the case of civil prisoners undergoing sentence in lieu of fine and detenus under laws relating detention and also in the cases of prisoners on bail etc., Hence, the clarification sought for on the first two items does not arise according to the G.O.Ms.No.841 Home (Pri-IV) Department dated 12.09.2001". 6. I have carefully considered the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and in the counter. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the husband of the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the period of remission given by various notifications cumulatively to be counted against the period during which he is on bail. 8. The law on the point is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in JOGINDER SINGH ..VS.. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (2002(1) C.T.C. 55) wherein it was held as follows: "...While applying the period of remission granted by the Government under any remission notification the period during which an accused person was on bail cannot be taken into account". 9. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (2002(1) C.T.C. 55) wherein it was held as follows: "...While applying the period of remission granted by the Government under any remission notification the period during which an accused person was on bail cannot be taken into account". 9. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. But, on the other hand, the petitioner is entitled to be released on 22.10.2003 itself. In that view of the matter the writ petition itself has become infructuous. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.