Court : Chennai
1. The accused in C.C.No.58/2004 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur seeks quashing of the order dated 31.08.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore remanding back the said calendar case to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur. 2. According to Mr. S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, once the trial court referred the case under section 325 CrPC to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore for imposing severe sentence, again the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot remand back the case to the referral Magistrate. In support of his proposition, Mr. Baskaran cited In re Sundalamada Kudumban [AIR (29) 1942 Madras 281 (2)]. Thus, he would submit that the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is required to be quashed. 3. Mrs. MF. Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the case was sent, has to deal with the case in accordance with the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad252
ORDERDevadoss, J. 1. The only point in this case Is whether the prosecution of the petitioner for a first offence after the offence has been compounded is legal. It is in evidence that the Tahsildar, who was em-powered to compound forest offences, compounded the offence with the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 8. His successor not being satisfied with the action of his predecessor has instituted their prosecution and there is some evidence that the trees which were said to have been cut, were more than those estimated by the previous Tahsildar. The mere fact that sufficient compensation was not taken from the offender is no ground for starting a prosecution, for under Section 55, Forest Act 5 of 1882, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property after an offence has been compounded. Para. 2, Section 55 is as follows:On the payment of such sum of money or of such value or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1901)11MLJ241
1. On the preliminary point in referred trial No. 61 and the connected criminal appeals.Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.2. These are appeals in Sessions Case No 53 of 1900 before the Sessions Judge of Kurnool Division. The trial of the said case commenced on 23rd August 1900 and closed on 15th October 1900 when judgment was reserved. The judgment was given on 24th October 1900, and the first eight accused in the case were convicted of murder and the ninth of abetment of murder. The trial before the Court of Session was with the aid of two assessors, viz., Gundu Rao and P. Seshiah Chetti, hereinafter referred to as the first and second assessor respectively. The first assessor was allowed by the Judge to go to Gooty to the death-bed of his mother at 2 P.M. on the afternoon of 5th September 1900, and he was also absent on the 6th and 7th September, but the trial proceeded during his absence. There was no trial of the case on Saturday the 8th and Sunday the 9th idem, and it was adjourned to Monday t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad397
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the fourteenth accused of the offence charged under Section 121-A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran-Nair, J.) convicted the first, second, sixth and fourteenth accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires farther consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(4)CTC335; 2000(72)ECC729
ORDER1. This petition has been filed for the grant of bail as the petitioner was arrested on 22.7.99 for allegedly found in possession of 500 grams of heroin for the alleged offence under section 8(c) read with 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 52(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the article seized has not been forwarded to the Magistrate. In support of the said submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the letter of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram addressed to the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Cases, Chennai in D.No.2413 dated 26.7.99 wherein it has been stated as follows:- 'The property in this case have not been received by this Court and Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai-2 has been asked to produce them before the Special Judge, NDPS Act cases on or before 6.8.1999.'3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sinceadmittedly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 and others under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and he bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and the same was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of John Tapp vide registered sale deeds. The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06. 09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10194 of 2009 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10328, 10794 and 11742 of 2009 Crl.O.P.Nos.10194, 10794 & 11742 of 2009 1.Mrs.Sri Priya 2.R.Vijayakumar 3.S.Sathiya Raj 4.S.Suriya 5.V.Arun Vijay 6.R.Sarath Kumar 7.Cheran 8.Vivek Crl.O.P.No.10328 of 2009 1.R.Sarath Kumar 2.Radha Ravi 3.Mrs.Sri Priya 4.R.Vijayakumar 5.Vivek 6.S.Sathiya Raj 7.S.Suriya 8.V.Arjun Vijay .... Petitioners Vs K.Tamil Selvi (Crl.O.P.No.10194 of 2009) R.V.Ramanathapillai (Crl.O.P.No.10794 of 2009) Mathivanan (Crl.O.P.No.11742 of 2009) 1.S.Arivumani 2.K.Diwakar 3.V.Sagaya Jeyaraj (Crl.O.P.No.10328 of 2009) ..... Respondents Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.10194 of 2009 Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records comprised in C.C.No.232 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1 at Sivaganga and quash the same. Prayer in Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 in Crl.M.P.No.4323 of 2015 in Crime No.304 of 2015 and to issue direction to release the petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.304 of 2015 dated 1.8.2015 on the file of Central Crime Branch-II, EDF-III, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, in accordance with Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 pending disposal of this petition and during investigation and trial.) 1. A very interesting question of law has been raised by Mr.Amit Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for determination by this Court in this Revision Case. For better appreciation, it may be apposite to state in brief the facts in this case. 2. (a) On a complaint lodged by one K.S.Kumar, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1748
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is preferred by accused 1 to 4 in Crime No. 49/81 of Ponneri Police Station, registered under Sections 448, 341 and 323, I.P.C. challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, before whom the abovesaid case is pending, rejecting the prayer of the accused in Crl. M. P. No. 1216/82 seeking the stoppage of further proceedings in the matter on the ground that the investigation in that case, which is a summons case, had not been concluded within a period of six months from the date of their arrest, as contemplated under Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C and seeking an order striking off the charge-sheet and discharging the accused.2. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the following grounds, viz., (1) that the perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the occurrence took place on 2-3-1981 and that the investigating officer had completed his investigation by 6-5-1981, (2) that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad690
Spencer, Offg.C.J.1. The six appellants before us form the third batch of persons tried for complicity in the Vizagapatam-Grdavari rebellion which broke out in August, 1922. The Agency Additional Sessions Judge has convicted them all of offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 143, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, and ha has convicted only the first and third appellants of an offence under Section 397, and the rest of offences under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and has sentenced the 1st accused to death and the other five to transportation for life.2. The first thing to be considered is whether the charge is in order both, as regards the unrepresented appellants, accused 2 to 6, and as regards the first appellant, although his vakil has not raised the defence that the conviction of his client is bad for misjoinder; nor does it appear that misjoinder of charges was made the ground of any objection when the appeals of the batches already disposed of were heard. There are eig...
Tag this Judgment!