Disposed

Arjunan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/3770/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC, filed by an accused, sought to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pukungkottai, to expedite the trial of Special Case No.2 of 2007. After reviewing the Trial Court's report on pendency, the Court directed the Magistrate to complete the trial and pronounce the verdict expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, to complete the trial and pronounce the verdict in Special Case No.2 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible.

Arjunan Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

CRL.OP.(MD)No.3770 of 2015

M.Arjunan

: Petitioner

Vs.

State through The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai, Crime No.8 of 2005.

¶11

: Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, to expedite the trial in Special Case No.2 of 2007, on his file within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Ramachanthiran For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Special Case No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, seeking expeditious disposal of the said case.

¶16

This Court, vide order, dated 10.03.2015, has directed the Trial Court to send a report as to the reasons for pendency of the said case and accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, has sent a report dated 16.03.2015, stating among other things that PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and three Material Objects were marked and on the side of the accused, a petition was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the prosecution witnesses 2 and 3 and the same was allowed on 03.12.2014. It is further stated that the Special Public Prosecutor for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Pudukkottai, is attending the Court only twice in a month and Special Calendar Cases are posted only in the above said dates for want of presence of the Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, in his report, has assured that he will take stringent steps for speedy disposal of Special Case No.2 of 2007, pending on his file.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/Accused No.1, along with the Accused No.2, would extend their maximum co-operation for the speedy disposal of the said case and the said submission made by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is placed on record.

¶18

¶19

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, is directed to complete the trial and pronounce the verdict in Special Case No.2 of 2007, as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶21

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

¶22

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai.

¶23

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.R.P.Ramachanthiran, Advocate in SR.No. 13302

¶25

sm:31.03.2015:2P/5C

¶26

ORDER MADE IN CRL.OP.(MD)No.3770 of 2015 DATED – 19.03.2015

¶27

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

Arjunan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjunan v. the Inspector of Police

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

N. Natarajan Vs Tmt. Geetha

Kannan Vs the Intelligence Officer

Banu Vs P. Ramasamy

Ramesh @ Ramesh Arockiaraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Manoharan Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Balasingh Vs the Inspector of Police