Sentence Already Served Under Central Act: Madras HC Sets Aside Rejection of Life Convict's Premature Release Plea
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that Section 435 CrPC cannot bar premature release once the sentence for the Central Act offence has been fully undergone, and directed fresh consideration of the convict's representation.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan, has set aside the State's rejection of a premature release plea filed on behalf of a life convict who has been incarcerated for more than 21 years. The court held that the bar under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding condition in G.O.(Ms).No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 1 February 2018, cannot operate against a convict once the sentence imposed for the offence under the Central Act has been fully served. The judgment, pronounced on 2 June 2026 in W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025, remits the matter to the authorities for reconsideration within four weeks. The bench also directed the Registrar (IT) to initiate steps for implementing the Supreme Court's “E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module” in Tamil Nadu prisons, beginning with Puzhal as a pilot.
The Convict, the Conviction, and the Stalled Representation
The petitioner, Nanjil Mugilan, is the son of Dhanapal (PID No.33633), who was tried in SC No.34 of 1999 arising from Crime No.1350 of 1997 registered at Omalur Police Station, Salem. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem convicted Dhanapal on 20 October 2004 under Sections 148, 341, and 302 (five counts) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The sentences imposed were: one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC, life imprisonment under each of the five counts of Section 302 IPC (with a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default two years rigorous imprisonment), and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. The trial court directed all sentences to run concurrently.
Dhanapal's criminal appeal, Crl.A.No.15 of 2007, was dismissed by the Madras High Court on 1 February 2007, which reiterated that the sentences would run concurrently. A further appeal before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. As of the date of the present judgment, Dhanapal had been incarcerated for more than 21 years.
According to counsel for the petitioner, Dhanapal had undergone substantial reformation during incarceration and had been granted leave several times without escort without any untoward incident. A representation seeking premature release was filed with the authorities. When it remained pending for a long period, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37931 of 2024, which was ordered on 8 January 2025 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits within three months. Pursuant to that direction, the State passed the impugned order dated 5 June 2025 in Letter No.9437861/Prison-IV/2025-2, rejecting the representation dated 11 November 2024. The rejection cited the conditions in G.O.(Ms).No.64, specifically paragraph 5(II)(3), which bars premature release in cases attracting Section 435 CrPC.
The Legal Issue: Does Section 435 Bar Survive Once the Central Act Sentence Is Served?
Section 435 CrPC requires the State Government to act in consultation with the Central Government before exercising its powers of remission or commutation under Sections 432 and 433 in three categories of cases: offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or any agency empowered under a Central Act; offences involving misappropriation or destruction of Central Government property; and offences committed by Central Government employees in the discharge of official duty. Sub-section (2) further provides that where a convict has been sentenced for offences relating to both Union and State subjects, an order of the State Government suspending, remitting, or commuting a sentence shall not have effect unless a corresponding order is also passed by the Central Government in relation to the offences within the Union's executive power.
In the present case, the State invoked clause (b) of Section 435(1) on the ground that Dhanapal had been convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, a Central enactment. G.O.(Ms).No.64 contains a condition in paragraph 5(II)(3) that cases “should not come under Section 435 of CrPC” for the convict to be eligible for premature release. The State's position was that this condition operates as an absolute bar the moment any offence attracting Section 435 is part of the conviction, regardless of whether the sentence for that offence has been served.
The petitioner's argument was narrower: since Dhanapal was sentenced to only one year rigorous imprisonment under the Explosive Substances Act, and that sentence ran concurrently from the date of conviction on 20 October 2004, it stood fully served by 20 October 2005. With the Central Act sentence long exhausted, there was no live sentence under Section 435 to require Central Government concurrence, and the G.O. condition should be read accordingly.
How the Bench Reasoned
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, writing the order for the Division Bench, traced the legal framework through a series of Supreme Court and Madras High Court decisions.
The bench drew directly on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. V.Sriharan alias Murugan and Others, which dealt with Section 435(2) in the context of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convicts. At paragraph 215 of that judgment, the Constitution Bench had noted that the convicts' sentences under various Central laws including the Explosive Substances Act, the Passport Act, the Foreigners Act, and the Wireless Telegraphy Act were all for lesser terms which, as on the date of consideration, stood undergone. The Constitution Bench concluded that there was consequently no occasion to seek remission or commutation on those counts, and the only remaining sentence was life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The Madras HC bench read this as a direct holding that the assessment of a premature release plea is tied to the sentence for the specific offence relatable to Section 435, assessed as it stands on the date of consideration.
The bench also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Others, where the prisoner had been tried for offences under both the IPC and the Arms Act. The Government Order applicable in that case contained a condition similar to G.O.64. The Supreme Court held that Section 435 would not be relevant since the sentence awarded for the Arms Act offences had been completed, and the plea for remission was therefore considered limited to the IPC offences. The bench found that the ratio in Rajan supported the petitioner's argument in full.
Two earlier Madras High Court decisions, K.V.Komarasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Thenthamizhan alias Kathiravan alias Dakshinamoorthi v. State of Tamil Nadu, had similarly held that where the period of conviction relating to offences under a Central Act had been served, the condition under Section 435 was no longer relevant.
The bench then addressed the State's argument that the G.O. condition must be read literally as a permanent bar once any Section 435 offence is part of the conviction. The court rejected this reading. It pointed to a subsequent Government Order, G.O.(Ms).No.430 dated 11 August 2023, in which the State itself modified the condition. Clause 5(II)(e) of G.O.430 retains the bar for cases coming under Section 435(1), but clause 5(II)(f) expressly provides that cases of prisoners whose conviction and sentence come under Section 435(2) “can be considered for premature release, if the period of such sentence has been undergone by the prisoners.” The bench read this as the State accepting the line of judicial interpretation that Section 435 requires Central Government concurrence only while the sentence for the Central Act offence remains current.
The court held that G.O.(Ms).No.64 must be understood in the same manner. To read it otherwise would be contrary to the explicit intention of the provision and to the State's own understanding as reflected in the subsequent Government Order. The bench was clear that the challenge before it was not to the validity of the G.O. condition itself, but to the State's interpretation of it. The question of whether a classification based on Section 435 is a reasonable classification — which had been answered in the affirmative in S.Nalini Srikaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and in State of Haryana v. Jai Singh — was therefore not the issue. Those decisions, the bench noted, had no impact on the present matter.
The E-Prisons Module and Directions for Tamil Nadu
The bench appended a substantive footnote to its judgment, drawing attention to the Supreme Court's order dated 13 April 2026 in Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP Crl.Diary No.28783 of 2024). That matter had arisen from conflicting directions issued by different benches of the Allahabad High Court on releasing convicts on bail where premature release applications had been pending for more than six months. The Supreme Court had, in the course of those proceedings, directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to develop software to implement its earlier judgment dated 18 February 2025 in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
The resulting “E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module” was described in the Supreme Court's order. Its features include automatic identification of prisoners eligible for premature release four months in advance, automated SMS and WhatsApp alerts to prisoners or guardians at each stage, elimination of physical file movement through an online platform, colour-coded alerts enforcing timelines on stakeholders, proposed interconnectivity of prisoner data across jails, police stations, and courts, and a centralised monitoring dashboard. The Supreme Court directed its Registry to circulate the order to all States so that similar initiatives could be taken. The Chief Justice of India launched the module at an event on 27 May 2026.
The Madras High Court bench stated that it was seizing the opportunity to enable implementation of the module in Tamil Nadu prisons. It directed the Registrar (IT) to convene a meeting of the relevant stakeholders and authorities within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, and to place a status report before the bench within a week thereafter confirming the readiness of the module for implementation. The prisons at Puzhal were identified as the pilot site.
Order
The Division Bench allowed W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025, set aside the impugned order in Letter No.9437861/Prison-IV/2025-2 dated 5 June 2025, and remitted the matter to the respondent authorities for reconsideration in light of the observations in the judgment. The authorities were directed to pass fresh orders within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order on the court's portal. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition, WP.MP.Crl.No.230 of 2025, was closed. The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 29 June 2026.