Allowed

A.Panneer Selvam, M/a 61 Years v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC7 Apr 2017CRL MP/4847/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the substantive portion of the rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on the petitioner for corruption offences pending the disposal of his main appeal, directing release on bail with conditions including a bond and monthly appearance.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioner enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

A.Panneer Selvam, M/a 61 Years Vs the State Rep by Its — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon `ble Mr Justice T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.4847 of 2017

IN CRL A.201/2017

A.PANNEER SELVAM

THE STATE REP BY ITS, THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. CR.NO.3/AC/2008/KG.

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL A.201/2017 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspending the sentence of imprisonment passed by Learned Chief Judicial magistrate at Krishnagiri in Spl.C.C.NO.1 OF 2010 by his judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 to undergo 6 months R.I. And a fine of Rs.1000/i/d simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and further he was convicted one year of RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. pending Appeal in CA.No.201 of 2017 [IN CRL.MP.NO.4847 OF 2017]

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL A.201/2017 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.EZHILNILAVAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.E.RAJA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [V&AC] on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶13

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, 1988 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, 1988. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

07/04/2017

¶22

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

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI.

¶27

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [V&AC] HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶29

+1C.C. to M/S.P.EZHILNILAVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.6327

¶30

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

¶31

MK:07/04/2017

A.Panneer Selvam, M/a 61 Years v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Panneer Selvam, M/a 61 Years v. the State Rep by Its

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

The Union Territory of Vs a.Rathinavathyammal

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

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

Mrs.Kavitha Andasu, Vs the State Represented by

N.Vajravel, Vs the State Rep by Its

P. Vijayaraghavan, Age 45 Yrs, Vs the Stae Rep. by the Inspector