← Library
Madras High CourtCRL A/460/2018dismissed as infructuous

S.Gnanavel, Aged 34 Years, v. State Rep. By Its,

2025-09-22Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar9 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 22.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR S.Gnanavel ... Appellant/Accused

Versus

State Rep by its, The Inspector of Police, W-9, All Women Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.

(Crime No.3/2015).

... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000 and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sentenced to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 12 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 5 years simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000.

1/9

Appellant : Mr.S.Mayilnathan Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

The appellant/Accused in S.C.No.100 of 2016 was convicted by the trial Court by the judgment dated 03.07.2018 for the offences under Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'POCSO Act') and Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000 and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, sentenced to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 5 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000. The sentences were 2/9

ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted for the charge under Section 506(i) of I.P.C.

2.Aggrieved against the said conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.460 of 2018 through his counsels, Mr.M.Murugesan, Mr.V.Srikanth, Mr.P.Suriyanarayanan, Mr.A.Kalidas, Mr.P.Palanisamy and Ms.P.Sudha. When the appeal was listed for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. After giving sufficient opportunity, this Court on 24.04.2024 appointed Mr.S.Mayilnathan, Enroll No.541/2009 as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. The Legal Aid Counsel was taking steps to contact the appellant for instructions. At that time, on 09.09.2025, the appellant S.Gnanavel had sent a letter to the Legal Aid Counsel that on 29.10.2024, he was released under remission rules. This Court enquired the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, how a person convicted under POCSO Act will benefit under remission rules and entitled for premature release.

3/9

3.Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, which is extracted hereunder:

4/9

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that after issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.61, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated 04.02.2025, the Government had issued an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 2024, specifying that prisoners convicted for sexual offences or under the POCSO Act shall not be considered for premature release. As regards the petitioner, he was released under remission rules prior to the 5/9

issuance of Government Order. G.O.(Ms).No.61 dated 04.02.2025 is extracted hereunder:

6/9

7/9

5. In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 22.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order rsi To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, W-9, All Women Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

8/9

M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J.

rsi 22.09.2025 9/9