Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1394
Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner herein has been detained under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). It is stated in the grounds of detention that he has been involved in Sivakasi East P.S. Cr. No. 288 of 1990 under sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which case he was arrested on 27-6-1990, sent for remand and later released on bail on 25-7-1990. This case related to an occurrence dated 20-6-1990 committed at about 20.00 hours at Pitchandi Street at Sivakasi in which the petitioner along with 21 others formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused a stab injury to one Pandiyarajan on the back of his left with a broken soda bottle, it is said, on account of previous enmity. In yet another case, Sivakasi Town P.S. Cr. No. 406 of 1990, he was arrested on 27-6-1990 and released...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 23.10.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.49/G/IS/2015 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely U.Hariharan @ Hari, s/o.Unnikrishnan, aged 25 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, U.Hariharan @ Hari, aged 25 years, son of Unnikrishnan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo C.No.49/G/IS/2015, dated 23.10.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1968Mad117; 1968CriLJ493; (1968)1MLJ480
1. These cases arise out of a charge-sheet laid before the Special judge, Madras Division, by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras on 5-10-1964 against P. Sirajuddin, Retired Chief engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madras, under S. 165 I. P. C. and S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Central Act II of 1947), and taken on file as C. C. 10 of 1964 by the Special Judge. The petitioner is charged, to be brief, with having habitually obtained for himself and members of his family valuable things from his subordinate officers without consideration or for inadequate consideration or for inadequate consideration or securing pecuniary advantage, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant. Nineteen instances are enumerated in the charge-sheet between the period 3-1-1961 and 14-3-1964. He is alleged, for instance, to have directed another officer working under him to get a suit length of imported variet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1961CriLJ394
Anantanarayanan, J.1.Our learned brother was not inclined to accept the view of the law in these decisions, and preferred instead the decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Bachan Pande v. State : AIR1957All130 . which took a view Opposite to the Madras eases. In the context of the importance of this question and the conflict of authority.: be made , a reference for placing the papers before a Bench in consequence of which these petitions are now before us.2. The, matter has now been extensively argued with citation of authorities, both by the learned Advocate General and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners (Sri G. Gopalaswami). We are indebted to the arguments of the learned Counsel far the elucidation and also for bringing to our notice the available and relevant authorities.3. The argument of the learned Advocate General has really two limbs or branches, but they are inter-related and not distinct. It could even...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tiruppattur, in S.C.No.17 of 2012, dated 04.01.2013.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2013 is the first accused and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2013 are the accused 2 to 6 in S.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore at Tiruppattur. 2. By judgment, dated 04.01.2013, the trial court convicted the first accused for offences under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with 149 IPC and accused 2 to 6 under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The trial court sentenced the first accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ544
Horwill, J.1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under sectioii 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.2. The motive for the offence is said to have been t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas275(Mad); (1999)155CTR(Mad)619; [1999]236ITR357(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. These revisions arise against the orders of the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and also the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.2. The Income-tax Officer, who is the revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 314 of 1989 prosecuted Electricals Fittings and Equipments (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Madras, and its directors, accused Nos. 2 to 5, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences I), Egmore, Madras, in E. O. C. C. Nos. 38 to 85 and 176 to 195 of 1986, for the offences under sec tion 276B read with Sections 192, 194A, 200 and 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, read with Rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Section 278B of the Act, alleging that the first accused company had not deducted the income-tax on the remuneration to the directors and also the interest credited to the creditors. Sixty-eight complaints were filed for the above violations under the abovesaid p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad126; (1960)2MLJ340
1.Our learned brother was not inclined to accept the view of the law in these decisions, and preferred instead the decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Bachan Pande v. State . which took a view Opposite to the Madras eases. In the context of the importance of this question and the conflict of authority.: be made , a reference for placing the papers before a Bench in consequence of which these petitions are now before us.2. The, matter has now been extensively argued with citation of authorities, both by the learned Advocate General and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners (Sri G. Gopalaswami). We are indebted to the arguments of the learned Counsel far the elucidation and also for bringing to our notice the available and relevant authorities.3. The argument of the learned Advocate General has really two limbs or branches, but they are inter-related and not distinct. It could even be said that one branch leads to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC106
ORDER1. Heard both the parties.2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.1995 in Crl.M.P.No.2388 of 1995 in C.C.No.201 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chengai M.G.R. District, allowing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr.P.C. and discharging the first respondent in the above criminal case, namely C.C.No.201 of 1995.3. The first respondent was facing a trial for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 326, I.P.C. with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 17.4.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. wherein the first respondent was said to have caused grievous injury on the petitioner herein, who was the victim, complaint in C.C.No.201 of 1995, by using a black stone. However, before the above criminal case was taken up for trial, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge him.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, however, taking note of the contradictions in the FIR, dischar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)55MLJ220
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate declining to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Section 353, I.P.C., by the second class Magistrate of Palni. The only point for consideration in this case is whether a warrant drawn up in the name of a forester could be validly endorsed by him to a forest watcher. The warrant was made out in the name of a forester for the arrest of two persons. The forester endorsed the warrant to a forest watcher for execution. The watcher along with a forest guard went and arrested two persons for an alleged forest offence. When they were being taken along the road the petitioner is said to have come and told the watcher 'What extraordinary warrants are these? Do you still possess the nerve to enter the parackeri?' and gave a slap on the cheek and told the warrantees to run away. If the watcher was justified in arresting the warrantees under the warrant no doubt he was discharging his d...
Tag this Judgment!