Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
..... . prior to the introduction of sub-section (1a) to section 176 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, if a person dies while in custody of the police, magisterial inquiry shall be held by the executive magistrate. by amending section 176 of cr.p.c. and by introducing sub-section (1a), the parliament has divested the executive magistrate from holding magisterial inquiry in respect of the death of a person while in custody of the police and instead the power has been conferred upon the jurisdictional judicial magistrate to hold inquiry. such inquiry held by the judicial magistrate, undoubtedly, shall not amount ..... rules. 27. when we suggested that a committee, consisting of the director general of police, government of tamil nadu, the inspector general of prisons, commissioner of police, city of chennai and state public prosecutor may look into the issue and to make a suggestion to the government to frame appropriate rules, the learned additional public prosecutor, on instructions from the director general of police, submitted that the director general of police, government of tamil nadu is ..... poison was not detected in any of them." ex.p.33 is the postmortem certificate and ex.p.34 is his final opinion that the injury found on the deceased could have been caused by a bullet and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gunshot injury. 2.9. after the postmortem was over, p.w.23, recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No.513/SC/2013 dated 13.11.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.11.2013 passed in Ref.No.513/SC/2013 as illegal, by which the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from the date of detention, i.e., 27.09.2013. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.03.2014, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent culminated in the sale deed dated 5.7.2007, which has been registered with S.R.O., Alandur, Chennai and quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd Respondent to remove the entry made as Document No.2179 of 2007 in Book I in office of the Sub-Registrar, Alandur, Chennai.) 1. The petitioner, being a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Securitisation Company under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'') and also a financial institution under Section 2(h)(ia) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('RDDB Act'), has come forward to file this writ petition seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 5.7.2007 registered as Document No.2179 of 2007...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Jan-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC challenging the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in M.C.No.2 of 2012 dated 17.02.2014.) 1. The Revision Petitioner/Respondent has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.02.2014 in M.C.No.2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 2. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, while passing the impugned order, on 17.02.2014 in M.C.No.2 of 2012, at paragraph No.13, had inter alia observed that the "... Respondent (Husband) has not proved the complaint of adultery between the petitioner/wife and one Mr.Suresh before this Court" and hence, negatived the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Husband in this regard. Further, the trial Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/Husband as maintenance to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Husband from the date of filing of M.C.No.2 of 2012 viz., 04.01.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.55 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.) 1. The Convictions and Sentences, dated 6.5.2005, passed in Sessions Case No.55 of 2005, by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, No.I, Coimbatore, are being challenged in the present criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2003, at about 5.00 O'clock, in Tiruvallur Nagar, Pollachi Mahalingapuram, knowing fully well that particular currency notes are fake, the accused has given the same to one Srinivasan in connection with painting work and the said Srinivasan has tried to utilize the same in a tea stall. On the same day, at about 4.00 O'clock, the accused has been found in possession of three fake notes of Rs.100/-. After occurrence, the defacto complainant, by name, Jeevanandham, has given a complaint and the same has been registered in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 6.12.2005 made in C.C.No.45 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur Dam, Salem.) 1. The order of acquittal dated 6.12.2005, passed in Calendar Case No.45 of 2004, by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, is being challenged in the present criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that against Sandalwood brigand Veerappan and his associates, a case has been registered in Crime No.90 of 2000, in Thalavadi Police Station, under Sections 306, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w.5(1)(a) and (b) of Indian Arms Act. Likewise, against them, another case has been registered in Crime No.438 of 1998, under Sections 397, 427, 332, 307 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act. The accused, knowing fully well that the said Veerappan and his associates have involved in unlawful activities and also committed so many crimes, has used to lend his assistance by way of giving shelter, foo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 29.07.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.99 of 2011.) 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the convictions and sentences dated 29.7.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.99 of 2011, by the District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the son of accused 2 and 3 and fourth accused is their daughter. On 8.6.2006, the first accused has married the deceased Sudha and after some time, all the accused have joined together and demanded huge amounts in the form of dowry from the deceased and since the deceased has not been able to meet out the unreasonable demands of dowry made by all the accused, on 25.11.2006, at about 4.00 p.m., in the house of the accused, she committed suicide by way of hanging. After occurrence, the father of the deceased, by name, Narayanappa, as defac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.271 of 2006 dated 4.3.2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 4th day of March, 2008 passed in Sessions Case No.271 of 2006 by the District and Sessions, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of elder sister of one Gopalakrishnan, who is none other than the husband of the victim by name Baby. The second accused is a close relative. The said Baby and Gopalakrishnan have loved each other and their marriage has been performed on 31.5.2000. After marriage, both the accused have caused torture to the said Baby and on 12.11.2004, the second accused has doused Kerosene on the person of the said Baby and the first accused has set fire on her. After occurrence, the father of the said Baby by name Venkata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Assistant Sessions Judge at Villupuram in S.C.No.42 of 2006 dated 22.3.2007.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 22.03.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.42 of 2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to six months from 18.09.2004, the first accused and prosecutrix have loved each other. The first accused has given promise of marrying her. On the basis of assurance given by the first accused, both of them have had carnal copulation on many occasions and subsequently he refused to marry the prosecutrix. On 17.09.2004, the accused 2 and 3 have hurled invectives by using filthy words against the prosecutrix and further the second accused has also threatened her. After occurrence, the prosecutrix has given a complaint and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner has submitted that he is an Advocate and appointed as Legal Adviser of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short TELC ?) by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC. It is submitted that though Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC has been elected legally, Mr.E.D.Charles causes hindrance to the smooth administration in respect of Churches,...
Tag this Judgment!