Partly allowed

T. Santhanam, S/O.Thangarasu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Apr 2019CRL MP(MD)/3259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court considered a petition seeking suspension of sentence pending disposal of a criminal appeal. The court noted arguable points in the appeal and the appellant's health and incarceration period, suspending the substantive sentence and enlarging the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence; enlargement on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of Rs.10,000 each.

T. Santhanam, S/O.Thangarasu Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.3259 of 2019 IN CRL A(MD) No.145 of 2019

¶6

T.SANTHANAM

¶7

... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ CONVICT

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, THANJAVUR. CRIME NO.4 OF 2008 ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed in Spl.Case No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam, dated 28.02.2019 till the disposal of the appeal.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K.M.SUBRAHMANIAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, While admitting the CRL.A., the court made the following order:-

¶13

The petitioner was convicted by the Judgment dated 28.02.2019 by the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam in C.C.No.67 of 2004 in the following manner.

¶14

Charges Proved under Sections Punishment (Imprisonment and Fine) u/s 7 of Prevention of Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and Corruption Act, 1988. to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for three months; u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and the Prevention of Corruption to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in Act, 1988 default to undergo simple https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Imprisonment for six months; Total Fine Rs.2,000/-

¶15

¶16

The Sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently awarded to the appellant.

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner. Already the Trial Court has suspended the sentence up to 28.03.2019. Hence, the petitioner has surrender before the Trial Court and confined in prison for past 7 days. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from chronic diabetic and blood pressure due to his old age about 65 years. Hence, he prayed for suspension of sentence.

¶18

3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases did not dispute the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

4.Having regard to the fact that there are arguable points involved in the appeal and further, the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and also considering the period of incarceration, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of suspension of sentence.

¶20

5.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 Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam, and on further conditions.

¶21

(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court as and when required, pending disposal of the appeal.

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶24

¶25

THE SPECIAL JUDGE/ CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KUMBAKONAM.

¶26

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶27

VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, THANJAVUR.

¶28

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶29

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶30

+1. C.C. to Mr.K.M.SUBRAHMANIAM Advocate SR.No.7699

¶31

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

¶32

CRL MP(MD) No.3259 of 2019 IN CRL A(MD) No.145 of 2019

¶33

MS/MMS/SAR-2/29.04.2019/2P.5C

T. Santhanam, S/O.Thangarasu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Santhanam, S/O.Thangarasu v. the Inspector of Police

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

Kayalvizhi, Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvam @ Ramar Selvam, Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravanan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Balamurugan, S/O.Sethu Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganesan, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Sekar @ Chandrasekar, Vs the Inspector of Police