The Madras High Court held that since the revision appellant was deceased, the proceedings abated as of right, resulting in the closure of the criminal revision petition without considering the merits.
The criminal revision petition was closed, as the proceedings stood abated due to the death of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Iyyakutty
1 CRL.R.C.(MD)No.464 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.10.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.464 of 2016
Iyyakutty .. Petitioner/Appellant/Accused Vs.
Vijayakumar .. Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment made in C.A.No.95 of 2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 29.02.2016 confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.T.C.No.650 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, dated 22.07.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Thesigan
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the revision petitioner is no more.
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
pmu
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2 CRL.R.C.(MD)No.464 of 2016
To
VB (15.10.2020) 2P 6C
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iyyakutty
Vijayakumar
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
