Allowed

Muthiyalu v. the State Rep. by the

Madras HC24 Nov 2015CRL RC/1208/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision was allowed quashing a District Judge's order dismissing a criminal appeal (CoA) for default. The High Court restored the appeal citing the Apex Court's ruling that criminal appeals cannot be dismissed for default.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dismissed for default was set aside; the appeal was restored to the District Judge's file for disposal within two months.

Muthiyalu Vs the State Rep. by the — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1208 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶8

Muthiyalu ..Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs. 1.The State, Rep. By the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. 2.Narayana Asari ..Respondents/Complainant

¶10

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore passed in C.A.No.48 of 2014, dated 10.02.2015, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.96 of 2013 dated 19.03.2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kingsly Solomon

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj,

¶13

Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.C.Deivasigamani for R2

¶14

***** O R D E R

¶15

This revision challenges the judgment of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in C.A.No.48 of 2014, dated 10.02.2015, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.96 of 2013 dated 19.03.2014.

¶16

The revision petitioner faced trial for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.96 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year S.I and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. Against his

¶17

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

¶18

conviction, the petitioner moved C.A.No.48 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which has been dismissed for default. There against, the petitioner has moved the present revision.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for first respondent and learned counsel for second respondent.

¶20

This revision is to be allowed for the reason that criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default as informed in the decision of Apex Court in Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1996 (4) SCC 720]. Guidelines are to be found in such decision on the course to be adopted by Court dealing with a criminal appeal, in the event of non-prosecution thereof.

¶21

Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the judgment passed by learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in C.A.No.48 of 2014 on 10.02.2015, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.96 of 2013 on 19.03.2014 shall stand set aside. C.A.No.48 of 2014 shall stand restored to the file of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The Court below shall dispose of C.A.No.48 of 2014 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

vsm Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶23

1.The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶24

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶25

3.The Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court II), Coimbatore.

¶26

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr.C.Deivasigamani, Advocate Sr 64160. + 1 cc to M/s.Corner Stone Associates Advocate Sr 63854.

¶27

SAI/CO KR/23/12 Crl.R.C.No.1208 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶28

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

Muthiyalu v. the State Rep. by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthiyalu v. the State Rep. by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ponnusamy Vs Sundaresan

M.Pechiyammal Vs M.R.Manjula

R.Arivazhakan Vs P.Kandasamy

K.S.Rajendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ramamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.M.R.Muralikrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police