Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-08-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC42
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the CBI or CBCID to investigate into the Crime No.30 of 1997 on the file of the second respondent and proceed as per law.2. This Court on 27.11.1997 called upon the Public Prosecutor to take notice and to get instructions. The Public Prosecutor also had entered appearance on behalf of respondents and a counter affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent on 5.12.1997. The writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel appearing for either side.3. The petitioner states that Cr.No.30 of 1997 on the file of Mettur Police Station was registered for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code with respect to the murder of one Papathi of Massilapalayam village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, that the deceased is the wife of Perumal, who is the petitioner's uncle and that the petitioner was brought up by the deceased Papathi since he was two years old.4. The petitioner furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-08-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)224; 1998CriLJ1762
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The short question which is of genera] importance is, whether the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. comes to an end after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of non-bailable offence and issue process, namely, warrant for arrest against the accused ?2. The probe into the question referred above would incidentally give rise to several subsidiary questions also as given below :-(1) What is the meaning of Anticipatory bail ?(2) What is the scope, of Section 438 Cr.P.C. ?(3) What is the period of duration of anticipatory bail (4) What is the stage at which Section 438, Cr.P.C. could be invoked .(5) What is meant by the accusation ?(6) What is the meaning of the word 'arrest' ?(7) By whom arrest could be effected ?3. Before dealing with these questions, let us, at the outset, refer Section 438 Cr.P.C.438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.- (1) When any person has reason to bel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)300; [2000]100CompCas429(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These four petitions could be disposed of by a common order, since these petitions relate to the quashing of the proceedings arising out of four complaints filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which the parties are the same.2. The one and the only ground urged by counsel for the petitioners in these petitions seeking to quash the proceedings is this : the complaints have been presented on behalf of the limited company, but the complaints do not reveal any authorisation either by way of board's resolution or power of attorney enabling the executant of the complaints, viz., one P. Govindarajulu, a director of the said company, to execute and present the same before the court.3. Counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of the decisions in Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. K.S. Selvamani [1994] 4 CCR 2374 ; Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu [1994] (1) III Crimes 820 ; Satish and Company v. S.R. Traders [1997] 1 ALD (Crl.) 747 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3722
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. Since the parties are the same in both the applications and identical question of law is raised in both these matters, these two applications were taken up together, heard and a common order is rendered hereunder.2. CC 331 of 1996 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam is with reference to the complaint dated 1-5-1994 by Asst. Executive Engineer, TNEB against Thavamani Ammal Prabakar, Rajendran and Md. Ismail. The allegation is that when a raid party of TNEB checked the High Tension Service Connection No. 01001 installed in Venkateswara Industries situate at Madurai Rajapalayam Road, it was found that the factory was running and all the lights were burning. But the meter was not running. On checking it was found that with a view to avoid the recording of the cosumption on the meter a line had been taken from the transformer by passing the meter and energy was drawn directly from the transformer and this has been done with a view to commit thef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC57
ORDERJudgment Pronounce by V.S. Sirpurkar, J1. Heard. In this petition, the detention of one Mathi @ Mathiyazhagan son of Krishnan, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Inmoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city is in challenge. The detaining authority has considered the said detenu as a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Said Act.2. The detaining authority has relied on two adverse cases. They being Crime Number 127 of 1997 on the file of H.B. Thiruvotriyur Police Station under Sections 341, 307 I.P.C. altered to 302 I.P.C. and Crime No. 130 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 336, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The ground case relied upon by the detaining authority is vide Crime Number 179 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station for the offen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3232
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. R.N. Jeyaprakash, the petitioner herein, challenging the impugned order, dismissing his application in Crl. M.P. No. 69 of 1997 in Spl. C. C. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the learned XI Additional and Special Judge, Chennai, requesting for discharge, has resorted to filing of this revision before this Court.2. The State represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. Headquarters, Chennai, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and five others on the allegations that they committed offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 409, 420, I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 409, 409 r/w 109, 420, 420 r/w 109 I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 14(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is A2.3. According to the prosecution, A1 to A6 agreed to do certain illegal acts in respect of placing of purchase orders for sarees and dhoties under the Chief Minister's free distrib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC300
ORDER1. The petitioner herein has filed this petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the issuance of process inter alia contending that it is the Magistrate who is alone vested with the power to take cognizance of the offence and under no circumstance the Sessions Court can usurp this power and order the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process.2. The learned counsel for the respondent questioned the maintainability of the revision petition and tried to justify the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process to the petitioner herein.3. It is not appropriate to direct that the complaint should be restored to file. The proper order is to direct further enquiry and direct the Magistrate to use his discretion once more if he thinks it proper to do so. In an identical situation, this Court in Nanjappa v. Periakkal, : AIR1951Mad772 , while setting aside Sessions Judge, directed charge to be fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC686
ORDER1. The above revision is directed against (he order of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.94 in S.T.C.No.2202 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and punishing him with a fine of Rs.250 on the basis of his pleading guilty. 2. The petitioner was facing a trial for (he offence punishable under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 23.6.94 at 9.30 A.M., when the petitioner was found in a drunken state and was using abusive words in (he public place, and therefore, the petitioner was immediately arrested by the police and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, on the same day, where, the petitioner pleaded guilty. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, recorded his pleadings that he was guilty and convicted him under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC276
ORDER1. Heard both counsel. A complaint was given by the petitioner on 22.10.1996 to the S.I. of Police, P.R.C. Wing, Cuddalore for the alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 506(II) of I.P.C. and also the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989). After registering the case by the S.I. of Police, P.R.C. Wing, Cuddalore, he later transferred the F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police, Virudhavhalam Police Station, who registered the case in Crime No. 768 of 1997 on the file of Virudhachalam P.S. The learned Government Advocate stated that after investigation by the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam P.S. the case was referred as mistake of fact.Notwithstanding the investigation and final report of the Inspector of Police I am of the view that he has no jurisdiction or power to investigates the matter because it involves the commission of the offience under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1998
Reported in : [1999]95CompCas492(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. Heard the petitioner's counsel. All these five applications were filed by the same petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in five criminal cases pending before the XIVth and XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and the petitioner/A-2 seeks to quash the proceedings in five criminal cases under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The first petition in Crl. O.P. No. 1408 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 by name Rajkumar Nahta, who is said to be the director of the first accused company under the name and style of Mrinal Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited at Bombay to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2263 of 1996 on the file of XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and it relates to the return of a cheque dated November 21, 1995, issued by the first accused company represented by its director the petitioner/A-2 for a sum of Rs. 24,99,013.3. The second petition in Crl. O. P. No. 1409 of 1998 is filed by the very same petitioner under S...
Tag this Judgment!