Allowed

T.Ganaprakasam, (M/45) v. State through

Madras HC4 Apr 2017CRL MP/4653/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to a petitioner convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act during trial, suspending his sentence pending the disposal of his main appeal. The order was issued due to infirmities in the prosecution case and the likelihood of a delay in the appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment was suspended; the petitioner was enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties, directed to appear before the Special Judge monthly.

T.Ganaprakasam, (M/45) Vs State through — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Fourth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon `ble Mr Justice T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.4653 of 2017

¶7

IN CRL A.184/2017

¶8

T.GANAPRAKASAM [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

¶10

STATE THROUGH [ RESPONDENT ] THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION, KRISHNAGIRI.

¶11

CR.NO.3/AC/2010/KG V & AC KRISHNAGIRI.

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment made in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri convicting the appellant under section of 7 the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month and under sections 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month pending disposal of the above IN CRL A.NO.184 OF 2017 [IN CRL MP.NO.4653 OF 2017]

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.K.S.KARTHIK RAJA, Advocate for the petitioner and of E.RAJA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (V & AC)on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶14

The petitioner herein stood convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Krishnagiri and sentenced to suffer six months of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer a further period of one month of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to suffer one year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶15

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial court, after recording the conviction and sentence, had suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner till 07.04.2017.

¶16

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to suspend the sentence till the disposal of the main appeal.

¶17

The Learned counsel submits that there are several infirmities and inconsistencies found in the prosecution case and there are contradictions in the material particulars between the evidences of the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and there are arguable points involved in the appeal, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, and further, since the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, this Court is of the considered view that the substantive portion of the sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable to be suspended.

¶20

Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Krishnagiri and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending appeal.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

04/04/2017

¶23

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶26

¶27

1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE), KRISHNAGIRI. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

3 STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION, KRISHNAGIRI.KRISHNAGIRI.

¶29

+1 C.C. to M/S.K.S.KARTHIK RAJA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.5940

Order

in CRL MP.4653/2017

CRL A.184/2017

Date :04/04/2017

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶36

PTI-06/04/2017

T.Ganaprakasam, (M/45) v. State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ganaprakasam, (M/45) v. State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elangovan Vs Sulochana

P.Mariammal, Aged 85 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Kalanithi Maran, M/a 52 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

K. Natarajan Vs N.M. Sivan

C.Kaliappan, Aged 66 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

K.Pachaiappan, Aged 72 Years, Vs the State Rep. by