The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking leave to appeal because the appeal was incorrectly filed under Section 378(3) CrPC instead of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
Criminal Original Petition dismissed as not maintainable due to filing under the wrong provision.
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: 03.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
Crl.O.P.No.18715 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.SR32547 of 2014
State rep. by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
(V & AC. Villupuram Cr.No.7/2011) .. Petitioner/
Appellant in CrlA.SR.32547/14
sought to be preferred to
this court)
vs.
1. K.Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani
S/o.M.Kandaswamy
Former Minister for Higher Education &
Mines of Tamil Nadu,
No.6-S & B, Thirupanalwar Street
East Shanmugapuram Colony,
Villupuram.
2. Tmt.P.Visalakshi .. Respondents/
Respondents in do
Prayer : Petition filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. to grant leave to file an appeal before this Court against the order passed in Cr.MP.No.2115/2013 in Special Case No.44/2014 dated 24.06.2014 by the Court of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram.
CrlA.SR.32547/2014: Crl.Appeal SR.No.32547 of 2011 sought to be preferred to this court against the order in Crl.M.P.No.2115/2013 in Special Court No.44 of 2014 dated 24/6/2014 on the file of the Court of Special Court for prevention of corruption Act Cases, Villupuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shanmugavelayutham Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.D.Siva Ramkumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondents: Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel for M/s.Wilson Associates
ORDER
Head the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order made in Crl.MP.No.2115 of 2013 in Special Case No.44/2014 dated 24.06.2014 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram, for raising the attachment. The attachment has been made under the provisions of 3(1) and 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
3.On perusal of Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, it was specifically mentioned that appeal has been preferred under Section 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1994. But, whereas the petitioner has filed this petition for grant of leave for preferring an appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. deals with the appeal against acquittal, but Section 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 deals with appeal. So, the provision itself is wrong. Since appeal has been preferred under Section 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, no leave is necessary and hence, this Criminal Original Petition itself is unnecessary and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
4.The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. cse -s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J) Dt:12/2/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
kji(co) prk24/2
Crl.O.P.No.18715 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.SR32547 of 2014
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave is required to prefer an appeal against an order of attachment made under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
K.Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani
Tmt.P.Visalakshi
R. MALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
