Disposed

R.Palanisamy, 39 Years v. Radhakrishnan

Madras HC13 Nov 2017CRL OP/617/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378(4) CrPC challenging an acquittal. Noting a failure to serve notice on the accused, the Court applied precedent to direct the Registry to send records to the Principal District and Sessions Judge within four weeks for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to send records to Principal District and Sessions Judge; petition disposed of; appeal closed.

R.Palanisamy, 39 Years Vs Radhakrishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 13.11.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.617 of 2017
in
Crl.A.No.SR.1449 of 2017
R.Palanisamy .... Petitioner
Vs
Radhakrishnan .... Respondent

¶7

Petition filed under Section 378 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode, made in S.T.C.No.547 of 2013 dated 02.12.2016.

¶8

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be

¶9

referred to as the complainant and the accused respectively.

¶10

The complainant has initiated a prosecution in S.T.C.No.547 of 2013 against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, acquitted the accused by judgment on 02.12.2016. Challenging which, the complainant is before this Court.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that Court notice has not

¶15

been served on the accused.

¶16

In view of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in S. Ganapathy vs N. Senthilvel [ (2016) 3 MLJ (Crl) 641 (FB)], the Registry is directed to send the records relating to this case to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, after taking a photocopy of the records, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶17

of this order.

¶18

The complainant is directed to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode on 18.12.2017 at 10.30 a.m.

¶19

With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Criminal Appeal SR No.1449 of 2017 is closed.

¶20

13.11.2017

¶21

Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Index:yes/no

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

¶25

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.N.PRAKASH, J

kal

Crl.O.P.No.617 of 2017
in
Crl.A.No.SR.1449 of 2017
13.11.2017

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Palanisamy, 39 Years v. Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Palanisamy, 39 Years v. Radhakrishnan

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

Jayapal, Age 55 Years Vs State Represented by

Arul Prakash, 40 Years, Vs State, Represented by

K.Nagendran, M/A.49 Vs State Rep. by

E.Murugesan Vs M.Chakaravarthi

D.Sampath, Aged 53 Years Vs State Represented by

Vetrivel (M/25 Yrs) Vs State Rep.by