1
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ494
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, clubbing S.C. Nos. 59 and 60 of 1979 on his file. 2. For an incident that took place on 21-4-1978 in Akkampalayan village, a charge sheet was filed in S.C. No. 59 of 1981 the first accused being the Vendikkara Muthu Naicken who is dead and fifteen other accused. Regarding the same incident Chinnammal, wife of the deceased preferred a complaint against seventeen persons which is the subject matter of S.C. No. 60 of 1981. Vendikkara Muthu Naicken who is an accused in S.C. No. 59 of 1979 is also an accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1981. On account of his death there are 16 accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1979. Except one Kondappan who is A-9 in S.C. No. 59 of 1979 all others are included as accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1979. A-9 Chinnu Naicken and A-10 Rangasamy in S.C. No. 60 of 1979 are not the accused in the other case and the rest of the accused are common in both the cases. 3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-13-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1719
1. This appeal by a private party is against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, acquitting the first accused who has been charged with an offence under Section 494, I.P.C. and accused 2 and 3 who have been charged for offences under Section 494 read with Section 109, I.P.C. 2. The appellant is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent, Rayarswami and a daughter, Clara was born of the wedlock. The parties belong to Christian Catholic community. The allegation against the first accused was that during the subsistence of his marriage with the appellant he contracted a second marriage with the second accused. Sundarammal, and therefore, has committed an offence punishable under Section 484, I.P.C. The marriage is said to have been performed in the house of the third accused at Thavasimadai at the instigation of the third accused according to the appellant, the first accused was in illicit intimacy with the second accused and was living with her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-31-1982
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT332(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a revision petition under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem, Integrated Divisional Office, Salem, against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari in C.C. 367 of 1978 directing the return of M.Os. 4 to 9 and 14 to the first accused, respondent herein. 2. The prosecution was laid by the Assistant Collector Excise, alleging that the respondent herein, viz. first accused along with another contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act and was thus liable to be punished under Ss. 85 and 87 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the case convicted the first accused and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The second accused, who is not a party to this petition, was found not guilty. While disposing of the said case, M.Os. 4 to 9 and 14, were ordered to be returned to the first accused after the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-15-1982
Reported in : (1982)IILLJ403Mad
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a conviction for consumption of liquor under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act will amount to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The facts may be stated as follows. The petitioner is the management of Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd, Madras. The second respondent, Doss, was an employee under the management on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 260. According to the management, the second respondent was engaged under a contract basis along with others to load tractors manufactured by the management on the railway wagons at Korukkupet railway yard as and when railway wagons are available. While so, the management came to know that the second respondent was said to have been arrested for consuming liquor on 1-2-1976 and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 60 by the Magistrate. Between 1-2-76 and 16-2-76 he did not turn up for work. On 17-2-76 when the second respondent turne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-17-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ912
1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of an individual going by the name of Palani Baba. He was detained on 9-8-1982 by an order of the District Magistrate of Periyar District. This order was later approved by the State Government. The detention was purported to be made under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The test of the order said that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain Palani Baba to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order.2. Two documents were relied on by the detaining authority as materials for formulating its grounds of detention. One was the verbatim transcript by an official stenographer of a speech in Tamil made by the detenu at Erode on 3-8-1982. The other was an affidavit sworn to by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode, who was a member of the police force in attendance at the meeting.3. The grounds of detention were two in number. One was that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-08-1982
Reported in : 1984(15)ELT385(Mad)
Gopalakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the brother of one Dalsingh, a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. The petition is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to produce the body of the detenu Dalsingh before this court and for giving the direction to set him at liberty. The detenu is now confined in the Central Prison, Madras, under the orders of the State of Tamil Nadu in its proceedings No. S.R. 2464-3/81, dated 19-10-1981 under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. The alleged grounds for the detention are - 1. Certain persons were apprehended on 12-6-1981 by the Customs Preventive Staff, Tuticorin, while conducting Coastal Patrol; 2. that they have given statements alleging that the detenu was engaging himself as a smuggler; 3. that on their information contraband goods were seized from one place; 4. that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-08-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Mad334; (1983)2MLJ32
Padmanabhan, J.1. This O.S. Appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 2nd Sept., 1982 in Appln. No. 3124 of 1982 in Appln. No. 165 of 1981.2. The facts leading to the filing of Application No. 3124 of 1982 may be briefly stated as follows. The late S. B. Adityan created a trust called the 'Thanthi Trust' on 1-3-1954. While creating the trust he appointed besides himself, his elder brother S. T. Aditayan and his elder son B. R. Adityan as trustees. On 19-5-1959 B. R. Adityan resigned. The respondents herein Kannan Adityan and Kathiresan Aditayan are the sons of the said B. R. Adityan. On 22-5-1959 the founder appointed his another son B. S. Aditayn the first appellant herein and also the Educational Trustee Co. (P) Ltd., as trustees. B. S. Adityan was appointed as Director-Trustee. On 8-11-1961 the founder S. B. Aditayan resigned. On 27-12-1963 S. T. Adityan the elder brother of the founder also resigned from the trusteeship. On 20-6-1978,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-19-1982
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT770(Mad)
1. This is an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Madurai under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence, awarded to the respondents in CA No. 381 of 1976 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. A few facts not in controversy may be stated for the disposal of the appeal. The respondents herein along with one Mohammed Hassan (who was originally charge-sheeted as A-1 and whose case was split up since he has absconded) were proceeding in an Ambassador car from Dindigul to Madurai at about 5-45 p.m. on 5-1-1972. Mohammed Hassan (A-1) was driving the car. The Excise officials stopped the car on the road and searched it in the presence of witnesses and they suspected that some contraband was hidden in the vehicle by some mechanical device and therefore, took the car to Madurai for intensive check up. Accordingly, when the car was thoroughly examined in a workshop, a miniature tank (MO 1) was found ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-09-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1765
Natarajan, J.1. A reference having been made by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under S. 395(2) of the Criminal P.C., the reference has been posted before us for orders. 2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor and he has been heard. 3. In S.C. No. 109 of 1978 there are ten accused persons. While the first accused is in custody, the others had been enlarged on bail. After examination of two witnesses for the prosecution, the second accused who was on bail absconded. Subsequently he could not be traced and even after proclamation was made under S. 82, and attachment of immovable properties was effected under S. 83 of the Criminal P.C., he has not surrendered. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge seeks clarification as to what is the procedure to be adopted by him. Apart from the outcome of the trial affecting the future of accused 1 and 3 to 10, the trial of a connected case in which all the accused in this case are prosecution witnesses is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1316
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is directed against the preliminary order made' in M. C. 806 of 1980 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Edmore, Madras, rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner (respondent in M. C. 806 of 1980 -- husband) that the Court below did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. filed by the respondent herein (wife).2. It is a very unfortunate case wherein the highly educated couple are perpetually fighting with each other obviously for the reason, that they are not able to get on together amicably. It is seen from the records that after the marriage, both the parties resided at Bangalore and that the revision petitioner filed an original petition for annulment of the marriage before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore city. Be that as it may, the respondent had left Bangalore and thereafter had filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Second Metropolitan Mag...
Tag this Judgment!