1997 Melavalavu Massacre | Madras High Court Asks State To Revoke Remission Of Accused After He Was Accused Of Attacking Man

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that though as per Clause 4 and 5 of the Bond Form No. 130 under Rule 341(8) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 puts a probation period of three years, it could not be assumed that after such period the life convict could indulge in any crime and that the authorities need not bother about the same.

“Such a restriction clause cannot be taken for granted to infer that after a period of three years from the date of premature release, the life convict prisoner can indulge into any crime and that would not attract the provisions for revocation of such remission and the authorities concerned need not bother about the relapse of the prisoner even when it is brought to their notice, especially, when the power of the authorities to revoke the remission order has not been taken away,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Manikandan to quash a Government Order issued by the Home (Prison-IV) Department by which the accused in the Melavalavu Massacre were given a premature release.

Manikandan informed the court that Sekar had attacked him with a knife following a quarrel in which he had sustained grievous head injury and Sekar even threatened him with dire consequences and said that he would murder them as he had done in the Melavalavu case. following this he had lodged an FIR in the Melavalavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 of IPC read with Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was informed that Sekar was arrested and was in jail.

Manikandan submitted that Sekar, being a life convict and having been released prematurely had violated the conditions for such release and thereby the GO was liable to be quashed and the authorities should be directed to restore the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

The state authorities, however, submitted that while effecting the premature release, Sekar had given a bond in Form No. 130 as per the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and the supervision period of 3 years expired on November 8, 2022. Thus, the authorities argued that it was not correct to contend that the conditions for premature release were breached by Sekar. Thus, the authorities submitted that quashing the GO was unwarranted.

Sekar contended that the GO remitting his unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment was passed in accordance with the law and there was very limited scope for judicial review on the powers exercised under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. He argued that the GO through which remission was given was already challenged before the High Court which was dismissed. He also argued that Manikandan had lodged a false case against him.

The court noted that Clauses 4 and 5 of Form NO. 130 which gives a supervisory period of 3 years is not exhaustive. The court noted that Clause 1 of the Form mandated the life convict prisoner to accept and fulfil all the conditions till the date of expiry of the normal period of imprisonment. The court noted that this clause made it clear that the convict was to comply with the conditions till the expiry of his normal period of imprisonment and not just the probation period of 3 years.

Thus, the court was not inclined to accept Sekar's contention. Further, though Sekar had contended that the present case was a false one lodged with malafide intention, the court noted that registration of FIR was done only when a complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offence. The court added that registration of FIR would prove that the police had taken cognizance of the offence and in such a situation, Sekar could not allege that the case was a false one.

The court remarked that it was the bounden duty of the authorities to initiate steps for revoking the remission order by implementing the default clause in the Bond and they could not shirk from their responsibility. The court thus directed the authorities to revoke the remission and restore the conviction and sentence imposed.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.A.Vadivel

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr.V.Karthi, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

Case Title: A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: Crl.O.P(MD).No.22911 of 2023