Madras High Court
CRL RC/1498/2019 of M.NATARAJ Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS on 30 December 2019
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.12.2019 CORAM THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:30.12.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANCrl.R.C.No.1498 of 2019
M.Nataraj
Vs.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by is Public Prosecutor Tiruppur
... Petitioner
2. Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D Police Station Tiruppur ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 readwith 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the recordsrelating to the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1521of 2019 in Crl.A.No.126 of 2019 on the file of the PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Court, Tiruppur and set aside the orderpassed by the Court, and thereby suspend the sentence imposed onthe petitioner, pending disposal of the Crl.A.No.126 of 2019.
For petitioner : Mr.Balaji ThirumoorthyFor Respondent : Mr.Shunmugarajeswaran Govt. Advocate ORDER
Heard learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 6(4) ofTNSC(RDCS) order 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months andalso imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo onemonth simple imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate II,Thiruppur in C.C.No.278 of 2018. Aggrieved by the said order,the petitioner filed an appeal, but there was a delay in filingthe appeal.
3. The learned Appellate Judge was pleased to condone thedelay in filing the appeal, but the petition for suspension ofsentence was dismissed.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. I am of the view that when the appellate Court decided toconsider the appeal on merits, there is no justification indismissing the petitioner's petition for suspension of sentence.Sentence is only for a period of three months. Therefore, I amof the view that the petitioner's sentence ought to have beensuspended during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2019on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. Thepetitioner's counsel states that the petitioner has alreadyremitted the fine of Rs.2,000/-.
In this view of the matter, the criminal revision petitionis allowed and the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 made inCrl.M.P.No.1521 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.126 of 2019 is set aside.Sd/- Deputy Registrar(C.S.)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Public Prosecutor Tiruppur2. The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D Police Station Tiruppur
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to M/s.Balaji Thirumoorthy,Advocate Sr.No. 106867
AKM/06.01.2020/2P-5C / Crl.R.C.No.1498 of 2019