Dismissed

Avudaiyappan v. Kalyani

Madras HC6 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/14790/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 407 Cr.P.C. petition, petitioners sought transfer of their sentencing hearing due to the court's prior adjournment and non-appearance issues. The court dismissed the plea, holding the case below completed trial and affirmed the lower court's authority to pronounce the sentence under Section 248(ii) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition invoking Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer was dismissed; connected M Ps. closed.

Avudaiyappan Vs Kalyani — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14790 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶7

1.Avudaiyappan 2.A.R.Manikandan 3.Sundar Singh

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Kalyani 2.State Rep.by The SubInspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Petition filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., to transfer the case in C.A.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai to some other competent Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For Respondents : Mr.R.Gandhi, for R1 Mr.K.Rajarajan, G.A.for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petition is filed to transfer the case in C.A.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai to some other competent Court.

¶16

2.The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.466 of 2003, were charged under Sections 419, 465 r/w 109 IPC. The case was ended in acquittal. Against which, the de facto complainant preferred an appeal in C.A.No.8 of 2011. After hearing the arguments, the petitioners were found guilty under the provisions of Sections 419, 465 r/w 109 IPC. Then the matter was adjourned for the appearance of the accused for questioning of quantum of sentence. On that day, a petition was filed under Section 317 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C., which was dismissed and NBW has been issued. Hence, they were directed to appear before the Court. Subsequently, they

¶17

¶18

filed another application under Section 353(vi) Cr.P.C. praying the Lower Court to pronounce the sentence. Notwithstanding their absence, the application in Cr.M.P.No.409 of 2011 in C.A.No.8 of 2011 was dismissed. They filed series of applications and all were dismissed. Hence, they come forward with this application for transferring the case from the Additional District Judge, FTC, Pudukottai to some other competent court.

¶19

3.When the matter was came up for hearing, this Court directed the court below to file a report. Accordingly, a report has been received from the concerned court. In that report, it is clearly stated that accused / petitioners herein were found guilty under the provision of law on 31.10.2011 and the respondents were directed to appear before the Court on 02.11.2011 for questioning them as to the sentence under Section 248(ii) of Cr.P.C. On 02.11.2011, they have not appeared and filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed and NBW was issued. He also filed a copy application for judgment which was also dismissed since question of sentence has not been awarded and hence, the judgment itself is incomplete. So considering these facts and circumstances of the case, already argument heard and judgment was pronounced and after they were found guilty, then only the petitioners taken all steps of delay intactics for appearing before the court and giving answer for questioning the quantum of sentence awarded as per the provision of Section 248 (2).

¶20

4.In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in this petition. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned court and facilitating the court to invoke section 248 (ii) Cr.P.C. for pronouncing quantum of sentence. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.

¶21

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai

¶26

Copy to:- The Section Officer,

¶27

"B" Section,

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.Ajmal Associates, Advocate, SR.No.29898 nbj

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/4c - 18/6/2013

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14790 of 2011 06.06.2013

Avudaiyappan v. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avudaiyappan v. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Alagesan, Vs Ilangovan

Muthusamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Varadaraja Boopathy Vs S.Sornapandian

C.Nirmala Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Thirukannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police