Disposed

S.P.Subramanian, v. State Represented by

Madras HC19 Jul 2018CRL OP/18185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court directed the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, to conduct an expeditious trial and complete it within nine months of receiving the order copy in a corruption case against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct expeditious trial and complete trial within nine months from the date of receipt of copy of order.

S.P.Subramanian, Vs State Represented by — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18185 of 2018

¶6

S.P.Subramanian ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Dharmapuri. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to issue a direction to the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri to conduct expeditious trial of C.C.No.3 of 2003 filed by the respondent in Crime No.Cr.No.4/AC/2000 on 4.08.2000 u/s 120-B, 109, 468, 471 IPC and 13(1)(c)and 13(1)(d) e/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act to dispose of the same within a specified period of time and pass such further other order.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneethakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to conduct expeditious trial in connection of a case in C.C.No.3 of 2003 filed by the respondent in Crime.No.4/AC/2000, dated 4.08.2000. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

3 Perusal of the record, this Court finds that the alleged occurrence took place in the years 1994 to 1998. First Information Report has been registered against this petitioner and twenty others for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 109, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) e/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

4 The contention of the petitioner is that though 15 years were lapsed after taking cognizance of this case, only two witnesses have been examined and therefore, direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial is required. The typed set of papers further discloses the fact that this petitioner has moved the trial Court for discharge in C.C.No.2 of 2003 in Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 28.03.2007.

¶16

5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that apart from this petitioner, there are 20 other accused pertaining to which, four charge sheets have been filed in connection with the said FIR. In some of the cases trial has reached almost finality.

¶17

6 Recording the same, this Court directs the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri to conduct expeditious trial and complete the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

7 With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1 The Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dharmapuri
2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit,
Dharmapuri.
3 The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.K.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate Sr.47741

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.18185 of 2018

¶20

srg 3/8/2018

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.P.Subramanian, v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Subramanian, v. State Represented by

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

Sukumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Ramam Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Kulandaivelu, MALE/68 Years Vs State Represented by

V.G.K.Moorthy, Aged 66 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

R.Thiagarajan Vs Deputy Superintendent of

Paramasivam Vs Inspector of Police