Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-2012
..... revenue divisional officer, who had not conducted the inquest and enquiry, relating to the death of the petitioner s daughter, had failed to follow the norms prescribed, under sections 174 and 176 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.11. it had also been stated that the procedures contemplated, under sections 165 and 175 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, had not been followed.12. the petitioner had also stated tha ..... 1 scc (cri) 79), to state that this court can direct the investigating agency to conduct the investigation, in a fair and unbiased manner, and to direct the executive magistrate concerned to cause a fresh enquiry, relating to the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner's daughter.21. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the ..... filed the present writ petition before this court, under article 226 of the constitution of india, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of crime no.398/2007, pending on the file of the inspector of police, thiurchengode.5. it has been further stated that the petitioner ..... n.divya.19. it has also been stated that all the necessary formalities had been followed by the authorities concerned, while conducting the enquiry into the death of n.divya, the daughter of the petitioner. further, this court had passed an order, in crl.o.p.no.9864 of 2008, denying the request of the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-02-2012
The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, for which selections were held during the year 2010. The petitioner was selected in the written test. Subsequently, his antecedents were verified. It was informed by the authorities that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.729 of 2005. The charges levelled against the petitioner relate to offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 324 and 506(2) IPC and he was assigned as an accused NO.1 in the said case. Though the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram acquitted the petitioner under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., it was opined the acquittal was not on merits but by giving the benefit of doubt. 2. On the receipt of report from the officer concerned, the petitioner was not selected. When the petitioner made a representation, he was replied with the impugned order dated 10.2.2011 by the Director General of Police, namely the 2nd respondent that not only the acquittal was not on merits but on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-02-2012
Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Jeyaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also that of Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), representing the respondent. 2. The petitioner figures as an accused in the case which is under investigation in Crime No.48 of 2011 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 I.P.C., registered on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai. Pending investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the police and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and accordingly a remand order was passed. Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition in Cr.M.P.No.7084 of 2011 for his release on bail in the above said case in which he was arrested and remanded. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai by the impugned order dated 05.09.2011, allowed the said petition and directed the release of the petitioner subject to the conditions that the petitioner should produce any deed to the val...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-2012
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, dated 17.12.2009 made in Cr.M.P.No.9605 of 2006 in C.C.No.174 of 2000. 2.The said petition was filed by the respondent police praying that the learned Judicial Magistrate should exercise the power conferred on the court under section 319 Cr.P.C., on the premise that the materials placed were sufficient to form a opinion that the first petitioner herein appears to have committed an offence under section 494 IPC and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein appear to have committed an offence punishable under section 494 r/w 109 IPC. 3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners herein to file their counter, conducted an enquiry and upon such enquiry, came to the conclusion that the evidence already adduced in the case, are enough to make the petitioners herein to face trial for the above said offences. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-2012
ORDER(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)1. The applicant had filed Writ Petition No.21810 of 2000 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the impugned orders of the respondents. After the constitution of this Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act and renumbered as T.A.No.11 of 2011. Practically this is an appeal against the conviction of the Court Martial under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007.2. The applicant-Umesh Kumar Singh is represented by his father Sri Chandrapati Singh. The applicant had filed the Writ Petition before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at the time when he was in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, undergoing sentence of 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment as per the verdict of the 1st respondent dated 12.10.1999. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 06.07.2000 reduced the period of Rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-09-2012
The sole accused in C.C.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai is the petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case. A case was registered on the file of Kollencode Police Station as Crime No.216 of 2008 on the file of the said police station for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. On completion of investigation, the respondent submitted a final report alleging commission of the said offence on the part of the petitioner herein, who allegedly cheated several persons including one Shanthi, the defacto complainant, based on whose complaint the case was registered by the police. The said final report was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai in C.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the said Court. 2. On appearance, the sole accused, who is the petitioner herein submitted a petition seeking an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was taken on file as Cr.M.P.No.864 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-2012
The sole accused in C.C.No.360 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi has come forward with the present Criminal Revision case, questioning the correctness and legality of the order of the said Judicial Magistrate, dated 27.05.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.8533 of 2010, filed by the Revision Petitioner in the above said Calendar Case. 2. In the said petition, the Revision Petitioner had contended that some of the documents relied on by the prosecution were produced only during the examination of P.W.1 in chief; that though copies of the said documents were allegedly handed over to the Investigating Officer during investigation, copies of the said documents were not furnished to the accused and that the Revision Petitioner needed copies of those documents for doing effective cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, after hearing both sides, observed that as many as 32 documents had been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-2012
1. Out of the five accused, who were convicted and sentenced in S.C.No.187 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, A.2 Xaiver Raj has directed this appeal. For the sake of convenience, throughout this appeal, we shall call him the appellant. 2. In the said Court, in the said case, A.2 stood charged for offences under Sections 342,148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. After trial, on 9.2.2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted A.2 under Sections 342, 148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him as under: (i) under Section 342 IPC : 1 year rigorous imprisonment (ii) under Section 148 IPC : 3 years rigorous imprisonment (iii) under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC : life imprisonment and fine Rs.1,000/- in default, 6 months simple imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all the said sentences shall run concurrently. 4. To bring home the charges levelled against all the accused including the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-2012
Heard the submissions made by Mr.J.Selvam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondent police. This court also perused the grounds of revisions, certified copies of the impugned orders and copies of the other connected papers filed in a typed set of papers. 2.The present Criminal Revision Cases came to be filed by A.Ochu, who has been arrayed as Accused No.1 in crime No.56 of 2011 on the file of the Kurangani Police station, Bodinaickanur, Theni District, against the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinaickanur, remanding him to police custody in the said case and dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner to release him on bail. 3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that when a person accused of a bailable offence is arrested or brought before the court or appears before the Judicial Magistrate, he cannot be remanded to either judicial custody or to po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-11-2012
Heard both sides. 2.Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.299 of 2011 which is pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, is the revision petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case. 3.A complaint was lodged on the file of All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai, as Crime No.33 of 2009 against the revision petitioner herein, his parents and a relative of the revision petitioner, by the wife of the revision petitioner alleging commission of cruelty punishable under sections 498-A IPC, demand of Dowry punishable under provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, attempt to commit murder punishable under sections 307 and 406 IPC. After investigation, a final report was submitted alleging commission of offence under sections 498-A, 406 and 307 IPC and also an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the part of the revision petitioner herein (A1) and offences under section 498-A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition...
Tag this Judgment!