R.Gurusamy v. Ganesan
Case brief
What is this about?
In an application under Section 397/401 CrPC challenging an acquittal, this Court held that the revision became infructuous upon proof that the first respondent/accused had died, and dismissed the case accordingly.
What did the court decide?
Revision case dismissed as infructuous since the first respondent/accused had died before the order.
What the court decided
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Criminal Revision Case (MD)No.674 of 2011
- R.GURUSAMY 2. R.OMPRAKASH
.. Petitioners/Petitioners
Vs.
- GANESAN
- THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 02.12.2010, passed in C.C.No.150 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai by allowing the Revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendran For R1 : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan For R2 : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision proceeding becomes infructuous when the accused convicted in the trial is dead.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
R. GURUSAMY
- petitioner
R. OMPRAKASH
- respondent
GANESAN
- respondent
THE STATE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court