Veeran v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 CrPC, holding it not maintainable as the proper remedy is an appeal to the Division Bench, which the Court could not condone.
What did the court decide?
The Criminal Revision was dismissed as not maintainable.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.167 of 2011
Veeran
S/o.Arumugam ..Petitioner/de-facto complainant
-Vs-
1.State by
Inspector of Police,
Marakanam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.523 of 2008.
... Respondent/Complainant
2.Sathish
S/o.Muthuvel Gounder,
3.Sudar @ Sudarvannan
S/o.Elumalai
4.Manjula
W/o.Nagaraj ... Respondents 2 to 4/Accused
Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thindivanam, passed in
S.C.No.411 of 2009 on 16.02.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents: Mr.V.Arul
Additional Public Prosecutor[R1]
No Appearance [R2 to R4]
O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case arises against judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thindivanam, passed in S.C.No.411 of 2009 on 16.02.2010.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging a murder judgment is maintainable given the existence of a Division Bench appeal remedy.
Whether the High Court can condone the time limit for filing an appeal instead of hearing the revision.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Veeran
- respondent
State
- respondent
Sathish
- respondent
Sudar
- respondent
Manjula
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court