Muthukannan v. The Inspector Of Police

Bail Slip The Revision Petitioners/Accuseds viz., 1.Muthukannan S/o.Mayandi Thevar 2.Ganesan S/o.Marimuthu were released on bail as per the order of this Court passed in MP(MD)2/2011 in Crl.RC(MD) No.282/2011 dated 19.04.2011 on the file of this Court. BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl. R.C.(MD)No.282 of 2011

1. Muthukannan

2. Ganesan .. Petitioners/Appellants Vs.

The State represented through, The Inspector of Police, Ambathuri Police Station.

(Crime No.677 of 2000) .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the sentence and conviction imposed in C.A.No.41 of 2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Dindigul, dated 18.02.2011, wherein the learned appellate Court modified the trial Court order in C.C.No.190 of 2001 dated 29.07.2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Dindigul. For Petitioners: No Appearance For Respondent : M/s.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate(Crl. Side).

ORDER

None appears for the Revision petitioners.

2. The first petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Sections 324 and 506(2) of I.P.C. and the second petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, in C.C.No.190 of 2001. They filed C.A.No.41 of 2010 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The first appellate Court by Judgment dated 18.02.2011 acquitted the first petitioner of the offence under Section 506(2) of I.P.C. and confirmed the conviction against the petitioners only under Section 324 of I.P.C. However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the same, the Criminal Revision has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that the first petitioner was in incarceration for 10 months and 12 days, while the second petitioner was in incarceration for about 4 months and 11 days. The occurrence itself dates back to the year 2001. Taking notice of these aspects, I am of the view that the conviction against the petitioners can be confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment on them is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

4. With this modification, the Criminal Revision stands partly allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Dindigul.

2. Do- Thro The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

4. Do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul

5. The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station.

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

Copy to The Section Officer,-2 copies Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

pmu Crl. R.C.(MD)No.282 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21.06.2019 KM/(18.07.2019) 2P 9C