Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/298/2016partly allowed

Chinnakalai v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

2020-12-23Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.298 of 2016 Bail Slip Chinnakalai, S/o.Veeranathever, Male, aged about 61 years/2016 (Accused) was released on bail vide Court order dated 11.05.2016 made in Crl.MP(MD)No.3989/2016 in Crl.RC(MD)No.298 of 2016. BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.298 of 2016 Chinnakalai : Petitioner/Appellant/Accused Vs The State By the Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D., Dindigul.

(Crime No.16 of 2009) : Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Crl.A.No.55 of 2013 confirming the Judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul in C.C.No.189 of 2010. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act, 1982 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment in C.C.No.189 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. The said Judgment of sentence and conviction was put to challenge in Crl.A.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. Vide order dated 09.03.2016, the appeal was dismissed and the Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. Challenging the same, this revision case came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner states that the petitioner is now aged about 66 years. The case was registered in the year 2009 and for the last 11 years, the petitioner has not come under adverse notice. The petitioner was in prison for about eight days. The petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction imposed by the Courts below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/4

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.298 of 2016 4.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even while confirming the conviction imposed on the petitioner, the sentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

5.With this modification in the matter of sentence, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D, Dindigul.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to: The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2) Crl.R.C(MD)No.298 of 2016 23.12.2020 MJ(CO) CS(08.01.2021) 2P 8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/4