Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1745
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, on the lodging of a report, registered a case against the petitioners herein for alleged offences under section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. and took up investigation. The investigation revealed that six murders were committed on different dates by the petitioners and consequently they were arrested and later remanded to custody by the Magistrate, as detailed below : S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of arrest Date of remand 1 Sankar alias Gowri Sankar 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 2 Mohan 15-7-1988 15-7-1988 3 Eldin alias Albert 15-8-1988 16-8-1988 4 Shivaji 29-8-1988 29-8-1988 5. Jayavelu 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 6. Ravi 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 7. Selvam alias Selvan alias Selvaraj 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 8. Raman alias Rajaraman 10-8-1988 11-8-1988 9. Palani 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 10. Paramasivam 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 The remand periods were extended on various dates by the Magistrate time and again. The petitioners were placed under deten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ196
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, for issuing a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent, Inspector-General of Police, Madras, to produce respondents 2 to 10 before this Court and to direct them to be set at liberty on the ground that they have been illegally arrested and detained by the first respondent without any warrant or authority of law and that their detention in consequence of such unlawful arrest was illegal and improper.2. The petitioner who claims to be the Executive Committee member, Communist Party of India, Tamil Nadu Committee filed an affidavit in support of this writ petition in which he stated that the Tamil Nadu Council of the Communist Party of India had decided to launch a movement throughout Tamil Nadu with regard to land grabbing and in pursuance of the said decision, the names of all those who would lead the peaceful Satyagraha in Tamil Nadu h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]235ITR751(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. Both these appeals are disposed of together since the parties are the same and the point is common. Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1987 is directed against the order of acquittal dated March 31, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Madurai, In C.C. No. 51 of 1985. Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1987 is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the very same magistrate in C.C. No. 52 of 1985 on the very same date. 2. The material averments in both the complaints arising out of these two cases in C.C. Nos. 51 of 1985 and 52 of 1985 are as follows : The first accused is a partnership firm which continued up to October 3, 1979, and after the death of one partner, viz., I. Abbas Ali, it was succeeded by I. Abbas Ali and Co., with the second accused to the seventh accused as partners. The business done by the first accused firm is the purchase and sale of iron and steel materials. The second accused to the seventh accused are partners in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to register the case based on the C.S.R.No.48/2012 dated 28.03.2012 and investigate the probe.ORDER1. Seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the complaint of the petitioners dated 28.03.2012, they have come up with this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners made three different complaints on 28.03.2012 separately to the first respondent. The crux of the complaints is one and the same. According to the petitioners, they were working as Teachers in a private school known as St.John s Senior Secondary School and Junior College (CBSE) for some years. At the time when they joined the School as Teachers, the second respondent Management insisted for the production of their original testimonials such as SSLC, +2 Certificate, Degree etc. The same were accordingly submitted by the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2964
Mishra, J.1. The appellant herein who has described herself as a domestic servant and her deceased husband as a construction worker, has filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 9195 of 1992 alleging that on 30-5-1992, she and her husband were woken up by the police at about 3.00 a.m. in the night, while they were in a hut near the Dental College at Annamalai Nagar in the District of South Arcot. One of the policemen told her husband to come to the police station. She wanted to know the reason, why policemen took her husband to the Police Station and was told that her husband was wanted for interrogation in connection with a case of theft. In the morning on 30th around 6.00 a.m., she went to her mother-in-law's place, told her about the arrest of her husband and then went with coffee for her husband to the Police Station. An orderly took the coffee for her husband and returned the empty tumbler. He asked her to bring idly for her husband and when she enquired about her husband, she was informed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1995]216ITR385(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl. R.C. No : 7 of 1986 reversing the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) , Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 634 of 1985, discharging the petitioners herein under section 245(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that no case is made out against the accused. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in his order has given the reasons for framing the charges against these petitioners for the offences under sections 34, 37, 114, 120B, 177, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts of the case set out in the complaint of the respondent-Income-tax Officer are almost admitted by the petitioners. The petitioners are husband and wife and they are income-tax assessees. On November 17, 1984, the officials of the Income-tax Department made a search in their house and seized a sale agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.303 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore and quash the same.COMMON ORDER1. "Can a power of attorney holder of an aggrieved person file a complaint in respect of matrimonial offences under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code?" This is one of the important questions to be dealt with in this case.2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010 are the accused 1, 3 and 4 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27329 of 2010 (Respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010) are the accused 2 and 5 in C.C.No.303 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore. This case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the first respondent in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010, who is the sole respondent in Crl.O.P.No.27329 of 2010. These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.303 of 2010. Since these two petitions relate to one and the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for EC Act case), Salem, by judgment dated 17.04.2006 made in S.C.No.310 of 2004.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.310 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act) Salem. There were three other accused by name Maveeran @ Venkatachalam, Sundaram and Kannan @ Chinnakannu, who were arrayed as Accused 2 to 4. All the four accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. In addition, the first accused was charged for offence under Section 3 r/w 25(1-B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 307 IPC. The 4th accused stood charged for offence under Section 5 r/w 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. By judgment dated 17.04.2006, the Trial Court acquitted the 4th accused from the said charge, however, con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 27.02.2015 made in S.C.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.130 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC and Accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 27.02.2015, the Trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed below:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1 to A.3120-BSimple imprisonment for six monthsA.1302 I.P.C.To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for six monthsA.2 and A.3342 I.P.C.Simple Imprisonment for six months eachA.2 and A.3302 r/w 34 I.P.C.To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad409; 1967CriLJ1530
ORDER(1) The petition has been filed on the ground that the complaint as given in the F. I. R. and the materials as gathered by the police in the course of the investigation do not disclose an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. but, if established may amount only to an offence under S. 363 I.P.C. The argument is that the facts, if provide, would amount only to an offence under Section 363 I.P.C. which is tribal by a court of Session, Presidency Magistrate of Magistrate of the First Class, and that the proceeding now before the Sub Magistrate, Tiruvadanai, for committal of the accused to take their trial before the court of Session for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is misconceived. According to learned counsel, it is not a case which is exclusively tribal by a Court of Session but it is one which is tribal by a First Class Magistrate as well and therefore the Sub Magistrate ought not to hear the proceeding, and the proceeding should be transferred to a First Class Magistrate having ...
Tag this Judgment!