The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal as infructuous because the report indicated the appellant had already served his sentence after remission. No substantive legal principle was discussed. Order pronounced on 22.04.2015.
Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2012
Vellai Nagoor @ Nagoor Meeran ...Appellant .. Vs .. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, R-7 K.K.Nagar Police station, Chennai 600 078. ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure code to set aside the judgment, dated 21.04.2010 made in S.C.No.468 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Chennai 1. For Appellant : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
Report from the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal stating that already accused has served sentence. After giving remission, he has been released from jail. No representation from the appellant. Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/Assistant Registrar(LA) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan
To
Crl.A.No.322 of 2012 VSN (CO) PSI(13.05.2015)
Vellai Nagoor @ Nagoor Meeran
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, R-7 K.K.Nagar Police station
P. Devadass
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
