Pavan Kumar vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenging the orders of the State Government and their action in refusing perol (leave), petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner has been convicted for an offence u/s 364-(k) of IPC in Session Trial No. 42/2005 by the learned Session Judge, Katni and is undergoing the sentence in Central Jail, Jabalpur. On various grounds pertaining to ailment of the petitioner''s old parents, who are more than 80 years of age and various other grounds, petitioner submitted an application seeking leave and on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted u/s 302 & 364(k) of IPC and by considering that the claim is not tenable, the application of the petitioner for leave has been rejected vide Annexure-P3 dated 6.3.2013.

During the course of hearing of this writ petition, petitioner invited my attention to the judgment rendered by the Session Court on 27.10.2007 and pointed out that the petitioner is only convicted for an offence u/s 364(k) of IPC and even though the petitioner was prosecuted for various other offences but has only been convicted for an offence u/s 364(k) IPC. It is said that the finding recorded by the authorities to show that the petitioner is convicted for an offence u/s 302 of IPC and is not entitled to perol (leave) is a perverse finding.

That a part, the reasons given by the petitioner and the documents available have not been properly considered and the application of the petitioner for perol (leave) has been rejected, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the records, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct. A perusal of the documents itself shows that the petitioner is only convicted for an offence u/s 364(k) of IPC and there is nothing in the order or the judgment passed by the Session Court to show that the petitioner is also convicted for an offence u/s 302 of IPC.

That being so, the findings recorded in Annexure-P3 dated 6.3.2013 indicating that the petitioner cannot be granted perol (leave) are perverse findings. That apart, some additional documents go to show that all these documents have not been considered by the competent authority.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is thought appropriate to remand the matter back to the competent authority. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order Annexure-P3 dated 6.3.2013 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the competent authority namely, Director General, Jail Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, who shall reconsider the matter and decide the question of granting leave to the petitioner after taking into note of the judgment rendered by the Session Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the petitioner or the representatives of the petitioner may file certified copy of this order along with relevant documents before Superintendent of Central Jail and the Superintendent of Central Jail after following the procedure contemplated under law shall forward the matter to the Jail, Head Quarters in accordance with law, wherein the matter shall considered and decided.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.