Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3026
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1.1. The aforesaid petitions raise an interesting but somewhat complex question for adjudication as to the procedure to be followed after the further investigation permitted under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the evidence gathered and vital materials collected, pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued and the undertakings given under Section 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure.1.2. In this regard, it is apt to extract Sections 166A and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for better appreciation of issues raised in the above petitions:'Section 166A Cr.P.C.: Letter of request to competent authority for investigation in a country or place outside India: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, if, in the course of an investigation into an offence, an application is made by the investigating officer or any officer superior in rank to the investigating officer that evidence may be available in a country or place outside Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)559; 2003CriLJ1938
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Y. Sreelatha @ Roja was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was admitted on 3.8.1999.2. Mukanchand Bothra, the complainant, aggrieved over the inadequacy of the sentence, filed a revision before this Court in Crl. R.C. No.736 of 1999 and the same was admitted and notice was ordered on 23.7.1999.3. On the application filed by the parties before this Court, the appeal against conviction pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, was directed to be posted before this Court for being heard along with Crl. R.C. 736 of 1999. Accordingly, the said appeal papers were received by the Registry of this Court and the same was renum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-30-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)36; 2003(159)ELT62(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The accused 1 and 2, the respondents herein were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 23 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act alleging that they exported 6 kilos of ganja by concealing the same in the Senna Leaves bags out of India. After trial, they were acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:'(a) Senna Kesavan, the first accused is a commission agent doing business in exporting Senna Leaves and Senna Pods in the name of M/s. Ramesh and Babu at Tuticorin. P.S.A. Charles, the second accused/second respondent is a Job Typist helping A1 in typing the correspondence between A1 and importers outside India. (b) A1 got the orders for sending Senna Leaves and Senna Pods from a firm by name M/s. Tai Ping Trading Company in Hong Kong in the year 1987. Accordingly, he sent 17 bales of Senna Leaves and 6 bales of Senn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3725
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Muthu, the second accused was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 21 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, he has filed Criminal Appeal No.513 of 1998. 2. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau has filed Criminal Appeal No.1056 of 1998, against the acquittal of one Chella Muthu, respondent herein, A-1 in respect of the charge under Section 8-C read with Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Since both these appeal arise out of a single case, a common judgment is being rendered through this.4. The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals could be summarized as follows:' (a) The complainant, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, is PW-1. On the basis of the information received by him, an auto rikshaw, bearing registration No.TMA 4113 was inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ4261
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for violating the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 in Crl. R. C. No. 21 of 2001 dated 5-1-2001.2. The case in brief is as follows :The petitioner is the President of Trichy Thanjai Pudukottai Quaid-e-Milleth Districts Film Distributors Association, a registered body. The petitioner was elected as the President in the election conducted on 7-5-2000. He is discharging the duties to the best of his ability. One R. Srinivasan convened General Body Meeting on 22-11-2000. As per the byelaws, the Secretary has no power or authority to convene General Body Meeting. It appears that the said Srinivasan has moved a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and other office bearers. The said Srinivasan brought non-members of the Association and behaved unruly, resulted in (sic) which, there was a confusion. There was an illegal resolu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-04-2002
Reported in : I(2003)DMC323
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The State through the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Chengleput Division, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in respect of the charges framed for the offences under Sections 120B, 304B, 306 and 498A I.P.C. against all the three accused, under Sections 203 and 417 I.P.C. against the first accused and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused 1 and 2.2. The case of the prosecution is this: 'On 21.3.1987, one Prabhat Kumari, the deceased, the wife of Gowtham Chand (A3) committed suicide by hanging from the rod of the ceiling fan in a room on the first floor of the house belonging to the respondents/accused 1 to 3. The bolt of the door of the said room which was locked from inside was broken by the accused persons and others by applying the physical force and untied the rope and put the dead body on the cot. The reason of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)64
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as 'the accused', on being tried under Sections 341 and 302, IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of the change under Section 341, IPC. Hence the appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is this:-P.W.1 is the son of the accused and the deceased is the wife of the accused. P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1. The accused, during the relevant period, was mentally ill and therefore, he was left in the custody of P.W.4, the elder brother of the deceased at Pethanadapatti. P.W.1 was working in a radio repair shop at Magizhvannanathapuram. On the date of incident, at about 11.00 am., P.W.2 and the deceased were proceedingto Pethanadapatti for a condolence. At that time, the accused suddenly appeared before the deceased, who is his wife and dashed her head against the wall of a house, which was nearby, as result of which, the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-14-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2359
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioners are accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and they seek for setting aside the order passed in Cri. M.P. No. 368 of 2001 in S.C. No. 3 of 1999, dated 10-12-2001 on his file.2. Briefly, the facts stated in the petition are as follows. The petitioners are charged for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 447, 448, 427, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of Criminal Penal Code in S.C. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondhichery. The respondent had examined 40 witnesses and the evidence was closed and the case was posted for further proceeding under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code on 20-11 -2001. The questions were not ready on that day and the petitioners, on the same day, filed a memo in Cri. M.P. No. 368 of 2001 praying for furnishing with all the circumstances that appear in the evidence against them in order to en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-19-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2342
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nithyanandam, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading tot he conviction are as follows:'(a) P.W.3 Kalidhasan, the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID received the information Ex.P4 on 22.9.1993 at about 11.15 P.M. regarding the offenders involving in the possession of heroin at Periyamedu. He recorded the same in Ex.P5 and sent it to P.W.5,the Inspector of Police, NIB CID. Then, he proceeded to the spot for surveillance at the junction of Naval Hospital Road and E.V.R. Periyar Road at Periyamedu. He secured the help of one Jayakumar P.W.4 to be as a witness for search. (b) P.W.3 and Head Constable P.W.1 along with P.W.4 were watching the movements of the offenders. At that time, i.e. on 23.9.1993 early morning, they found two persons including the appellant wal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : (2002)1MLJ575
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms .No. 148 Home (Cinema) Department dated 26.2.2001 of the second respondent made in Cinema Appeal No. 10 of 2000 D.Dis.L. dated 17.7.2000 and of the third respondent dated 13.12.1999 and quash the proceedings of the respondent 1 to 3 dated 26-02-2001, 17.7.2000 and 13.12.1999 respectively to include the name of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in 'C' form Licence and grant renewal of the same in respect of the Star Talkies, Triplicane High Road, Chennai - 600 005.2. Heard both sides...It is the case of the petitioner that Star Talkies is located in door No. 40 and 41, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. The theater is located in Door No. 40 and Door No.41 has been used as parking area for the above theatre. The lands comprised in Door No.41 is absolutely owned by the petitioner and in Door No. 40, the petitioner is owning...
Tag this Judgment!