Dismissed

Senthil Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2020CRL A(MD)/208/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the submission of counsel that the convicted appellant's sentence has largely been undergone and he faces imminent release due to good conduct, the Court permitted withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2015 and connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.A(MD)No.208 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.03.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.A(MD)No.208 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

Senthil Kumar

¶8

... Appellant/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur Police Station, Thoothukudi District ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the sentence and conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi in S.C.No.99 of 2013, dated 05.02.2015.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.P.Balakrishnan for Mr.S.R.Anbarasu For Respondent : Ms.S.Bharathi Govt.Advocate (crl.side)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.P.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court found the appellant / accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. He would further submit that the appellant / accused is in jail and he already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than five years and due to his good conduct, he is going to be released in the next couple of weeks, hence, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

Crl.A(MD)No.208 of 2015

¶18

In the light of the above submission and in view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi. 2. The Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur Police Station, Thoothukudi District 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 Copies) MPK TE : 06/05/2020 : 2P/7C JUDGMENT MADE IN Crl.A(MD)No.208 of 2015 11.03.2020

¶25

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

¶26

2/2

Senthil Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanthammal Vs the Inspector of Police

Durai @ Sappani Muthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Raghuraman Vs Sakthivel

Rajiyakodi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

E.Chellam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Karthikeyan Vs the Inspector of Police