Disposed

Mohamed Hanifa v. State Rep.by

Madras HC8 Oct 2015CRL A/540/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for cheating under Section 397 IPC. The court held that since the appellant had already completed the seven-year sentence, the relief sought was infructuous and the appeal became liable to be disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was disposed of as the relief sought became infructuous since the appellant had already undergone the sentence.

Mohamed Hanifa Vs State Rep.by — Corruption | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 08-10-2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.540 of 2007

¶6

Mohamed Hanifa (25) Appellant/Accused 1

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tirupur, South Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.468/99) Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.344 of 2005 dated 29-06-2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC 2) Coimbatore.

¶10

For appellant :: Mr. A.S. Chakravarthi For respondent :: Mr. P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This Criminal Appeal has been directed against conviction and sentence dated 29-06-2006 passed in S.C.No.344 of 2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Court(FTC II), Coimbatore.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant has represented that the Trial Court has found the appellant/accused guilty under Section 397,IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years R.I., and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) with usual default clause and since the Trial Court has passed its judgment on 29-062006 and imposed R.I. of seven years, the period of sentence has already been undergone by the appellant/accused.

¶14

On the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court has verified the judgment passed by the Trial Court wherein it has been clearly stated that the appellant/accused has been found guilty under Section 397, IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) with usual default clause. The judgment of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Trial Court has been pronounced on 29-06-2006. Since the

¶15

Trial Court has imposed only seven years R.I. it is needless to say that the appellant/accused has already undergone the quantum of sentence imposed against him and therefore, the relief sought for in this appeal has become infructuous and this appeal is liable to be disposed of, accordingly.

¶16

In fine, on the basis of the observation made earlier, this appeal is disposed of.

¶17

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
glp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Tirupur,
South Police Station
Coimbatore District
2. The Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC 2)
Coimbatore
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras
Criminal Appeal No.540 of 2007
ad co
kra 19/10

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mohamed Hanifa v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Hanifa v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthalamman Traders Vs v.Rajagopal

Natarajan Vs Inspector of Police

Anbu Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Sadasivam Vs R.S.Paramasivam

Assistant Director , Vs Durgashanker

V.R.Rengaraju Vs the Inspector of Police