Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 328 (MAD)

N. Mareeswari v. State of Tamil Nadu

2019-01-31

B.PUGALENDHI, R.SUBBIAH

body2019
ORDER : R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016, dated 17.10.2016. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Maruthu @ Nallamaruthu, son of Bose Thevar. The said Nallamarudhu was involved in a case of murder, in which, the trial Court convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. As a life convict (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536), he was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. While so, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 on the occasion of the birth centenary of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Anna on 15.09.2008, granting premature release to 1405 life convicts, who satisfied the conditions stipulated therein on 15.09.2008. The said Nallamarudhu (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536) was one among 1405 life convicts, who were given the benefit of premature release, as per the Government Order No. 1155. At the time of release of life convicts, a bond was obtained from the said Nallamarudhu, in and by which, he gave an undertaking that he would not involve in any other crime and he would not show any misconduct. Clause 5 of the bond reads as follows: "(5) that during the period of supervision by the said Probation Officer or other officer- (a) I shall not quit the said district without the written permission of the said probation or other officer; (b) I shall not associate with persons of bad character or lead a dissolute life; (c) I shall live honestly and peaceably and shall endeavour to earn an honest livelihood; (d) I shall not commit any offence punishable by any law in force in the Indian Union; (e) I shall abstain from taking intoxicants; and (f) I shall carry out such lawful directions as may, from time to time, be given by the said Probation Officer or other officer for the due observance of the conditions mentioned above." 2.2. After his release, it was alleged that the life convict No. 3536 (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was involved in two other crimes, one in Cr. After his release, it was alleged that the life convict No. 3536 (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was involved in two other crimes, one in Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District, for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., altered into Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 364, 302, 201 and 212 I.P.C. The alleged occurrence in the said case was on 16.04.2009 and after investigation, a final report was filed and the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and the detenu has been facing the trial in that case. Another case in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Tuticorin District, was also registered against the detenu for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. Since the detenu was involved in the above said two cases before the expiry of period of probation, the Government, by G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, cancelled the premature release of the detenu granted on 15.09.2008 on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the bond. The relevant portion of the said G.O., reads thus: "7. The Government have examined the above request of both the Director General of Police and Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons and decided to accept the same. 8. Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, hereby cancels the remission of the un-expired portion of sentence of imprisonment for life passed on life convict prisoner No. 3536 Maruthu @ Nallamaruthu, S/o. Bose Thevar of Central Prison, Madurai, ordered in the G.O., first read above, for breach of bond conditions by the said life convict. 9. Consequent on the cancellation of the remission of sentence of life imprisonment passed on the life convict prisoner No. 3536 Maruthu @ Nallamaruthu, S/o. Bose Thevar of Central Prison, Madurai, the Government direct that the said life convict, if at large, shall be arrested without warrant and remanded to undergo the un-expired portion of life sentence." 2.3. Challenging the same, the detenu filed H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 before this Court. 2.4. Challenging the same, the detenu filed H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 before this Court. 2.4. When the said Habeas Corpus Petition came up for consideration before this Court, the impugned Government Order in G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, was attacked mainly on two grounds and they are: "(i) the first and foremost ground is that the cases, in which, the detenu has been arrayed as accused are false cases. But, without affording any opportunity whatsoever to the detenu, the impugned order came to be passed. Thus, according to him, the principles of natural justice have been seriously violated, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. (ii) The 2nd ground urged by the learned senior counsel is that as per the Prison Manual, there has to be a report from the Probation Officer and in the instant case, there was no such report at all obtained from the Probation Officer and thus, the petitioner was deprived of the report of the Probation Officer, which would have gone in his favour." 2.5. After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2016, has rejected the grounds raised by the detenu and dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition. 2.6. Now, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu seeking to set aside the order passed by this Court dated 17.10.2016 by reviewing the same. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was convicted under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C., in S.C. No. 505 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. After the conviction passed by the trial Court, the detenu was lodged in the fifth respondent prison and while the detenu was undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, he happened to be one among the prisoners whose cases were considered for premature release. The Government, by G.O.(Ms). No. 1155, dated 11.09.2008 decided to release the prisoners who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008. The Government, by G.O.(Ms). No. 1155, dated 11.09.2008 decided to release the prisoners who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008. Accordingly, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, ordered the premature release of 1,405 life convicts who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008. Thus, the detenu was released on 15.09.2008. At the time of release, the detenu executed a bond, as per which, the detenu should not involve in any offence from 15.09.2008 and 15.09.2011. In such an event, a positive report would be given by the Probation Officer in favour of the detenu. 4. He further submitted that the detenu is a political personality of DMK Party and is holding the post of Secretary to the Ward No. 59 of Madurai City and his brothers are also holding important posts in the DMK Party. During the By-Election campaigning of Thiruchendur Constituency, a case was registered on 15.12.2009 against the detenu by Kulasekarapattinam Police Station in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C., and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. Subsequently, on 16.04.2009, another case was registered by Avaniyapuram Police Station in Cr. No. 130 of 2009 under Section 304-A I.P.C. Due to political motive, the detenu was falsely implicated in Cr. No. 130 of 2009, pursuant to the extra-judicial confession given by the co-accused, namely, Pandi, to the Village Administrative Officer, Avaniyapuram, on 30.07.2011 and an alteration report was prepared by the Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, whereby Section 304-A I.P.C., was altered into Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. The detenu was implicated in the said case just before the expiry of the period of probation which was going to expire on 15.09.2011 and he was arrested in connection with Cr. No. 130 of 2009 and remanded to judicial custody on 02.08.2012 and confined at the fifth respondent prison and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. No. 130 of 2009 and remanded to judicial custody on 02.08.2012 and confined at the fifth respondent prison and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. While so, the fifth respondent sent a letter dated 13.08.2012 to the third respondent seeking to cancel the remission granted to the detenu and the fourth respondent also sent a letter dated 07.09.2012 to the first respondent through the second respondent seeking cancellation of remission granted to the detenu for violation of the condition imposed in the bond under Section 432(3) Cr.P.C. The third respondent, by his proceedings in D.Dis. No. 29712/PS1/2012-2, dated 26.09.2012 forwarded the letter dated 13.08.2012 sent by the fifth respondent to the first respondent to pass necessary orders. The second respondent by his proceedings in Rc. No. 1419/171332/Crime 3(1)/2012, dated 02.03.2013 requested the first respondent to issue orders for the cancellation of remission granted to the detenu on the ground of violation of the conditions prescribed in the remission order. The first respondent by his communication dated 20.03.2013 requested the second respondent to furnish the case particulars of Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station. On receipt of the same, the first respondent passed the impugned order vide G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, cancelling the remission of sentence granted to the detenu. 5. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that challenging the said G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, the wife of the detenu filed H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 and this Court, by order dated 17.10.2016, dismissed the same. Subsequently, the case registered in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station was closed as 'Action Dropped' and a closure report was also submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, on 18.01.2018 and the same was also accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 23.02.2018. Insofar as Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station is concerned, sixteen material witnesses have been examined in S.C. No. 447 of 2014 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and none of the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The remission granted to the detenu was cancelled pursuant to the registration of the cases in Cr. The remission granted to the detenu was cancelled pursuant to the registration of the cases in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station and the said two cases were construed as violation of the condition imposed while granting remission. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner was acquitted in S.C. No. 447 of 2014 in connection with Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District and in respect of the case in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, it was closed as 'Action Dropped' and hence, it cannot be presumed that the detenu has violated any condition imposed in the remission order and hence, prayed for reviewing the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court. In this regard, he placed reliance on the order of this Court in N. Murugeswari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [2015-2-L.W. (Crl.) 273] [H.C.P. No. 2855 of 2013, decided on 06.08.2015], wherein, it is held as follows: "15. It is well settled that after acquittal, the Court cannot presume that the said convict Navaneethakrishnan has involved in any other criminal case or committed any offence, since the competent Court has held that the said Navaneethakrishnan has to be acquitted, either by the trial Court or the Appellate Court and hence, on the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Court cannot presume that he has violated any condition imposed in G.O.(Ms). No. 873, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 14.09.2006, whereby remission was granted by the Government. As there is a constitutional safeguard and this Court is dealing with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be proper to refer this issue to any Board. This Court can decide independently without considering the decision of the Board, or any other Forum, as it relates to personal liberty of a person, as there is no disputed question of fact. 16. It is crystal clear that the Fundamental Right of any citizen is paramount under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court can decide independently without considering the decision of the Board, or any other Forum, as it relates to personal liberty of a person, as there is no disputed question of fact. 16. It is crystal clear that the Fundamental Right of any citizen is paramount under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the said constitutional provision, we are of the view that after the remission order passed and subsequent cases, which were admittedly ended in acquittal, the convicted person, Navaneethakrishnan shall not be detained further, as that would be only an illegal detention. 17. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detenu, Navaneethakrishnan, (Life Convict No. 1872), the father of the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith and he is entitled to be released immediately unless and otherwise, his presence is required in any other case." 7. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, vide G.O.(Ms). No. 1155, dated 11.09.2008, ordered the premature release of 1,405 life convicts who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008 and the said power of the Governor is absolute and it does not speak about imposition of any condition and therefore, the condition should not be imposed by the first respondent. Whereas Section 432 Cr.P.C., speaks of remission or suspension without any condition or subject to any condition. Further, Section 432(3) Cr.P.C., specifically provides for consequences in the event of non-fulfilment of conditions and to remand the person to jail. Rule 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 also deals with the case of prisoners to be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration of prisoner for premature release and Rule 341(8) of the said Rules, imposes a condition to obtain a bond in Form No. 130 from the prisoners and a bond in the Form No. 131 from their sureties, as per which, the detenu should not involve in any offence, in default, he is liable to forfeit the remission and consequently, he is liable to be remanded in jail. In support of the same, he relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661. 8. In support of the same, he relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661. 8. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the power conferred on the Governor of State under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is absolute and being a constitutional power, the same is not liable to be restricted by any legislative provision and in this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Krishnan Nair vs. State of Kerala reported in 1984 Crl.L.J 87. Therefore, the condition imposed in the remission order passed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is not legally sustainable since the said power is an absolute one. 9. The next fold of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a specific provision in the Indian Penal Code to punish the prisoner who violates the condition of remission. He also invited the attention of this Court to Section 227 I.P.C., and submitted that even if there is a violation of condition imposed on the detenu, the first respondent ought to have initiated the proceedings under Section 227 I.P.C. and only by resorting to the procedures under Section 227 I.P.C., the remission can be cancelled and in the present case, by merely issuing a Government Order, the remission was cancelled and on this ground also, the impugned Government Order is liable to be set aside. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that this point was not considered by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 and thus, by entertaining the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, he sought to review the order passed by this Court in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016, dated 17.10.2016 and set aside the same. 10. 10. Countering the said submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that as per the settled proposition of law in the judgment in State of Maharastra v. Tasnee Rizwan Siddiquee in Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2018, dated 05.09.2018, the persons who are lawfully detained on the orders passed by the competent Court, cannot maintain a habeas corpus petition and hence, the present petition seeking to review the order passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Further, he submitted that there is no inherent power of review available to the criminal Courts though the criminal Courts are clothed with extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus, the present petition is not maintainable. 11. With regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while releasing a prisoner on remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, bond should not have been taken, it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that neither the petitioner nor the detenu has challenged the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 or the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015. As per Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the Government shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends and the extent of the executive power of the State is given subject to the provisions of the Constitution of India and the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has the power to make laws. Hence, by combining the above constitutional mandates, the Government of Tamil Nadu while exercising the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India passed the order of remission in G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, subject to the usual conditions to be imposed on the prisoner at the time of premature release on 15.09.2008 on his executing a bond in Form No. 130 as per Rule 341 [Explanation 3(8)] of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. 12. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, subject to the usual conditions to be imposed on the prisoner at the time of premature release on 15.09.2008 on his executing a bond in Form No. 130 as per Rule 341 [Explanation 3(8)] of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. 12. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is true that Article 161 of the Constitution of India grants power on the Government to grant remissions without any condition or upon any condition which the person sentenced accepts. The husband of the petitioner while getting himself released subscribed to the conditions and hence, for the breach of conditions, as consented by him, he is liable for further action. 13. With regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner relating to the provisions of Section 432(3) Cr.P.C., it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that Section 432(3) Cr.P.C., provides that if any condition on which, a sentence has been suspended or remitted, is in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the Government may cancel the suspension or remission and thereupon, the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted, may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. Section 227 I.P.C., also simultaneously envisages the same action for the violation of conditions. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India reported in AIR 2006 SC 3385 , wherein it has been observed that the exercise of executive clemency is a matter of discretion and yet subject to certain standards. It is not a matter of privilege, but it is a matter of performance of official duty. It is vested with the Governor not for the benefit of the convict only, but for the welfare of the people who may insist on the performance of the duty. Hence, the contention that no condition should be imposed on premature release is not sustainable. It is vested with the Governor not for the benefit of the convict only, but for the welfare of the people who may insist on the performance of the duty. Hence, the contention that no condition should be imposed on premature release is not sustainable. For a person who was to remain behind the bars as a life convict for an interminable period for the offences committed by him, had to be weighed in its proper perspective and allowing him to go scot-free without binding himself that he will not indulge in any criminal activities at least for a period of three years will have catastrophic consequence and hence, Rule 341(8) in Form No. 130 is perfectly legal and the petitioner herein without challenging the above said Government Order, cannot maintain the present petition seeking to review the order passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016, dated 17.10.2016 and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the same. 14. By way of reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is incorrect to state that the present petition is not maintainable and that the writ of habeas corpus is a very important jurisdiction in which the High Court can protect the individual liberty of the citizens and the habeas corpus petition is not meant only to challenge the detention order. He also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Paramasivapandian v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, Tirunelveli Unit reported in 2001 (1) MWN (Crl.) 1, wherein it is held that the order of remand passed without authority of law is illegal and thus, he sought for setting aside the order passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016, dated 17.10.2016. 15. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the materials available on record including the judgments relied thereon. 16. It is seen that the husband of the petitioner involved in a case of murder, in which, the trial Court convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai, as a life convict (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536). While so, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 on the occasion of the brith centenary of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr. He was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai, as a life convict (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536). While so, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 on the occasion of the brith centenary of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Anna on 15.09.2008, granting premature release to 1405 life convicts, who satisfied the conditions stipulated therein on 15.09.2008. The husband of the petitioner (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536) was one among 1405 life convicts, who were given the benefit of premature release. At the time of release of life convicts, a bond was obtained from the said Nallamarudhu, in and by which, he gave an undertaking that he would not involve in any other crime and he would not show any misconduct. But even before the expiry of three years, he was involved in two criminal cases and hence, the order of premature release was cancelled and the premature remission was withdrawn by virtue of the G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 17.10.2016. Now, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to review the order dated 17.10.2016 passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016. 17. After the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016, the case in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station was closed as 'Action Dropped' and closure report was also submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, on 18.01.2018 and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 23.02.2018. Insofar as the other case in Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, the husband of the petitioner was acquitted in S.C. No. 447 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, on 05.12.2018. In view of the change of circumstances, the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and review the earlier order dated 17.10.2016 passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016. 18. In view of the change of circumstances, the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and review the earlier order dated 17.10.2016 passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016. 18. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is absolute, conditions could not imposed by the first respondent while granting remission and further, Article 161 does not speak of any cancellation of remission or of any consequence of violation of any condition of such remission unlike the powers conferred under Section 432 Cr.P.C., and Section 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 and hence, the same is not liable to be restricted by any legislative provisions and hence, the cancellation of remission granted to the husband of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 19. At this juncture, it would be just and proper to extract hereunder the relevant provisions for easy appreciation: Article 161 of Constitution of India: "161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.- The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends." Section 432 Cr.P.C: "432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.-(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. (2)... (3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted, is in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence." Rule 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983: "341. Cases of prisoners to be placed before the Advisory Board.-(1) The sentences of all prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life or to more than twenty years imprisonment in the aggregate or imprisonment for life and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate twenty years shall, for the purpose of this rule, be deemed to be sentenced of imprisonment for twenty years. **** ***** **** ***** (8) Where order is received from the Government for parole of a prisoner on his executing a bond in addition to a bond from a surety, the Superintendent shall send the prisoner on parole only after obtaining the bond in Form No. 130 from the prisoner and a bond in Form No. 131 from the surety." 20. According to the petitioner, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 on the occasion of the birth centenary of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Anna on 15.09.2008, granting premature release to 1405 life convicts, who satisfied the conditions stipulated therein on 15.09.2008. The said Nallamarudhu (Life Convict Prisoner No. 3536) was one among 1405 life convicts, who were given the benefit of premature release, as per the Government Order No. 1155. At the time of release of life convicts, a bond was obtained from the said Nallamarudhu, in and by which, he gave an undertaking that he would not involve in any other crime and he would not show any misconduct. The said premature release was ordered by the Government in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and hence, there cannot be any imposition of conditions while ordering such premature release. 21. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Article 161 of the Constitution of India speaks of grant of reprieves, pardons, remission etc., however, it does not speak of imposition of conditions for such grant, whereas Section 432 Cr.P.C., speaks of remission or suspension without any condition or subject to any condition. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be any condition imposed while exercising the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and in support of the same, he relied on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 1984 Crl.L.J 87 and State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661. 22. On a careful reading of the said judgments, we find that absolutely, there would be no quarrel in accepting the proposition that the power to grant remission conferred on the Governor of the State under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, is absolute and the same is not liable to be restricted by any legislative provisions. 23. But, we are of the view that the G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 was issued as early as in the year 2008, but the petitioner has not challenged the imposition of the conditions on her husband at the relevant point of time and therefore, at this length of time, we are not inclined to set aside the cancellation of remission order passed in G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, on that ground. 24. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to Section 227 I.P.C., made an yet another submission to the effect that without resorting to the provisions of Section 227 I.P.C., the remission order granting premature release to the husband of the petitioner cannot be cancelled by the first respondent. It is relevant to reproduce hereunder Section 227 I.P.C: "227. Violation of condition of remission of punishment - Whoever having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates any condition on which such remission was granted, shall be punished with the punishment to which he was originally sentenced, if he has already suffered no part of the punishment, and if he has suffered any part of that punishment, then with so much of that punishment as he has not already suffered." 25. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the violation said to be committed by the husband of the petitioner is that he was involved in two criminal cases, viz., (i) Cr. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the violation said to be committed by the husband of the petitioner is that he was involved in two criminal cases, viz., (i) Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District, under Section 304-A I.P.C., altered into Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 364, 302, 201 and 212 I.P.C., and (ii) Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Tuticorin District, under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C., and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. Even assuming that the detenu had violated the conditions imposed on him at the time of premature release, the first respondent ought to have initiated the proceedings under Section 227 I.P.C., however, the remission order granting premature release to the husband of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the first respondent by issuing the G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015. Now, the petitioner was acquitted in S.C. No. 447 of 2014 in connection with Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District and in respect of the case in Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, it was closed as 'Action Dropped' and hence, it cannot be presumed that the detenu has violated any condition imposed in the remission order granting premature release to the husband of the petitioner. In view of the change of circumstances, the petitioner prayed for reviewing the earlier order passed in H.C.P(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 on 17.10.2016. 26. In support of the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in N. Murugeswari v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 and others [2015-2-L.W. (Crl.) 273;] [H.C.P. No. 2855 of 2013, decided on 06.08.2015], wherein, it is held as follows: "15. It is well settled that after acquittal, the Court cannot presume that the said convict Navaneethakrishnan has involved in any other criminal case or committed any offence, since the competent Court has held that the said Navaneethakrishnan has to be acquitted, either by the trial Court or the Appellate Court and hence, on the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Court cannot presume that he has violated any condition imposed in G.O(Ms). No. 873, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 14.09.2006, whereby remission was granted by the Government. As there is a constitutional safeguard and this Court is dealing with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be proper to refer this issue to any Board. This Court can decide independently without considering the decision of the Board or any other Forum, as it relates to personal liberty of a person, as there is no disputed question of fact. 16. It is crystal clear that the Fundamental Right of any citizen is paramount under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the said constitutional provision, we are of the view that after the remission order passed and subsequent cases, which were admittedly ended in acquittal, the convicted person, Navaneethakrishnan shall not be detained further, as that would be only an illegal detention." 27. From the above decision, it is explicitly clear that the fundamental right of any citizen is paramount under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and after the remission order passed and the subsequent cases registered against the husband of the petitioner, viz., Cr. No. 130 of 2009 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District, ended in acquittal and insofar as Cr. No. 283 of 2009 on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station is concerned, it was closed as 'Action Dropped'. Thus, the husband of the petitioner shall not be detained any further, as that would be only an illegal detention, for the reason that the first respondent failed to adhere to the procedures contemplated under Section 227 I.P.C. Failure to comply with the same would definitely cause prejudice to the detenu, that is what had happened in the case on hand. The personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India shall not be easily taken away by non-compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the law. The personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India shall not be easily taken away by non-compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the law. Personal liberty of the husband of the petitioner had been interfered with by the impugned Government Order in G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, as the first respondent did not strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 227 I.P.C., while cancelling the remission order granting premature release to the husband of the petitioner. On this ground alone, we are of the considered view that the impugned Government Order in G.O.(2D) No. 241, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 23.07.2015, is liable to be interfered with. If at all, the first respondent intends to take action against the husband of the petitioner for such violation, the first respondent shall adhere to the provisions of Section 227 I.P.C., which were apparently given a go-by. Therefore, we have no other option except to interfere with the impugned cancellation order passed by the first respondent by reviewing the earlier order passed in H.CP.(MD) No. 1365 of 2016 on 17.10.2016. 28. In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the earlier order dated 17.10.2016 passed in HCP (MD) No. 1365 of 2016 is set aside. Consequently, the Order of detention passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D) No. 241, Home (Prisons) Department dated 23.07.2015 is quashed. The Detenu namely Nalla Maruthu @ Maruthu, Son of Bose Thevar, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be set at liberty, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.