The Madras High Court revised the condition for suspending the petitioner's sentence, reducing the required compensation deposit from Rs.40,000 to Rs.25,000 under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The condition to deposit Rs.40,000 was modified to require a deposit of Rs.25,000 as part of the compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.12.2013
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
CRL.R.C.(MD) No. 831 of 2013
P.Velmurugan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Rajendran ..Respondent/Respondent/Respondent
2.The Public Prosecutor, O/o.Public Prosecutor, District Court Campus, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ..Respondent/Respondent
Prayer : Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the condition, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/before the trial court being part of the compensation amount as a condition precedent for suspending the sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C.No.757 of 2012 dated 09.10.2013 on the file of the learned Fast Track Judge (Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.4009 of 2013 in Crl.A.No.101 of 2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For R2 : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate
O R D E R
This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in Crl.M.P.No.4009 of 2013 in C.A.No. 101 of 2013 dated 12.11.2013 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- before the trial court being part of the compensation amount as a condition precedent for suspending the sentence imposed upon the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while suspending the sentence the trial court ought not to have imposed such onerous condition. In support of his contention the learned counsel cited the decision of this court in C.Murugesan Vs.Prabakaran and State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011-1-L.W.(Crl.) 464 wherein it has been held in paragraph NO.7 as follows:
2
compensation amount by the trial court is also a subject matter of appeal being right of the accused. The position may be different it is a case of remisssion.
petitioner, I am of the view that the order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- before the trial court being part of the compensation amount as a condition precedent for suspending the sentence can be modified. It is ordered that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the trial court being part of the compensation instead of Rs.40,000/- as ordered by the lower court. In all other aspects, the order of the lower court suspending the sentence shall hold good.
4.Accordingly, this revision is disposed of. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track court (Magistrate Level), Thoothukudi.
3.The Public Prosecutor, O/o.Public Presecutor, District Court campus, Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,Advocate SR.No.61634 COPY TO:
The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.831 of 2013 10.12.2013
ses
PA/07.01.2014/2P/7C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condition of depositing Rs.40,000 as compensation is a condition precedent for suspending sentence.
Whether the revision against the suspension condition can be modified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.Murugesan Vs.Prabakaran and State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶13
C.Murugesan Vs.Prabakaran and State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011-1-L.W.(Crl.) 464
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Velmurugan
P.Rajendran
The Public Prosecutor
Aruna Jagadeesan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Aruna Jagadeesan
Parties & counsel
