JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.3474/Tha Ku.2/2022, dated 12.04.2022, issued by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for one month without escort to the detenue, Asok @ Asok Kutti, son of Kottaisamy, aged about 38 years, life convict prisoner, bearing Convict No.2567, detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.) P.N. Prakash , J. 1. Seeking ordinary leave for the convict prisoner Asok @ Asok Kutti, son of Kottaisamy (C.P.No.2567), his nephew Vinoth gave a representation, dated 15.03.2022, which has been rejected by the order dated 12.04.2022, by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Asok @ Asok Kutti faced a prosecution in S.C.No.58 of 2012, before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, in which, on 18.09.2012, he was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 397 I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. The appeal filed by him in Crl.A.(MD) No.57 of 2013 was dismissed by this Court on 08.04.2013. While that being so, Asok @ Asok Kutti was granted three days emergency leave on 19.05.2016, under which he was required to return to the prison on 23.05.2016. However, he did not return on the due date and absconded. While in abscondance, he was arrested by the Police in connection with Chinnakovilangulam Police Station Crime No.148 of 2018, under Section 379 I.P.C., on 08.09.2018 and was admitted in the prison as a remand prisoner. Only then, the prison authorities came to know that he was the convict prisoner, who had jumped the emergency leave. Therefore, in the impugned order, it is stated that as he had jumped the emergency leave earlier and absconded, he cannot be granted ordinary leave. 3. Only then, the prison authorities came to know that he was the convict prisoner, who had jumped the emergency leave. Therefore, in the impugned order, it is stated that as he had jumped the emergency leave earlier and absconded, he cannot be granted ordinary leave. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some family properties have to be partitioned, for which the presence of Asok @ Asok Kutti is necessary and under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (for brevity, “the Rules”), a prisoner can be granted ordinary leave for settling family disputes like partition, etc. He further contended that the convict prisoner was acquitted in the case that was registered against him for jumping the emergency leave. 4. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions. 5. Rule 3 of the Rules clearly states that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a concession granted to the prisoner. In this case, the convict prisoner was earlier granted three days emergency leave on 19.05.2016 and he did not return to the prison. Only when he was arrested in another case, he came into the prison. In other words, for over two years, the convict prisoner was in abscondance. 6. That apart, in the counter affidavit, dated 03.07.2022, filed by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, in Ground (b), it has been stated as under: “b) It is submitted that the ground (b) of the affidavit the following cases are pending against the life convict and facing Trial 1) Chinnakovilankulam PS Cr.No.148/2018 U/S 379 IPC (Cattle Theft) pending in C.C.No.222/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. 2) Karivalamvanthanallur PS Cr.No. 277/2018 U/S 379 IPC pending in C.C.No.21/2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.” 7. Thus, from the above, it is seen that the convict prisoner is facing two prosecutions in C.C.No.222 of 2019 and 21 of 2020, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, in which he has to be produced for trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. 8. Rule 35 of the Rules states as follows: “35. Pending cases.- No prisoner on whom a case is pending trial shall be granted leave.” Therefore, there is a bar under the Rules for grant of any leave to a convict prisoner against whom a case is pending trial. 9. Rule 35 of the Rules states as follows: “35. Pending cases.- No prisoner on whom a case is pending trial shall be granted leave.” Therefore, there is a bar under the Rules for grant of any leave to a convict prisoner against whom a case is pending trial. 9. Be that as it may, since the convict prisoner has been convicted of the offence under Section 397 I.P.C., he may not be eligible for ordinary leave, in view of Rule 21(b) of the Rules, which reads as under: “21. Non-eligibility for ordinary leave.- The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for ordinary leave:- (a) ... (b) Prisoners sentenced under sections 392 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).” 10. Thus, viewed from any angle, we find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. 11. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.