Dismissed

Anandharaj v. State Rep by

Madras HC27 Jul 2021CRL RC/1272/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court held that since the appeal against acquittal in the underlying consignment case is pending, the revision petition filed by a third party claiming ownership of the material object is premature and thus dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as premature; petitioner directed to work out remedy after completion of trial in Sessions Court.

Anandharaj Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

CRL.R.C.No.1272 of 2019

¶6

Anandharaj S/o, Kandhasamy

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 397 r/w section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to setaside the judgment in Crl.M.P.No.1111 of 2019 in S.C.No.48 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Chandrasekar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to setaside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1111 of 2019 in S.C.No.48 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶16

The revision petitioner is not a party to the case in S.C.No.48 of 2017 and he is said to have the owner of the property. The judgment in S.C.No.48 of 2017 itself, the trial court observed that after the appeal time is over, the material object is ordered to be returned to the original owner. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed this revision petition. Since the appeal is pending, the Revision petition is dismissed as premature and after completing the trial and dispose of the sessions case in S.C.No.48 of 2017 ,

¶17

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

¶18

the revision petitioner is directed to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶19

-s/d-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶21

True Copy

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

mfa

¶24

¶25

The Principal Sessions Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.

¶26

The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station,

¶27

Dharmapuri District.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor,

¶29

High Court,

¶30

Madras.

¶31

CRL.R.C.No.1272 of 2019

¶32

NSK 27/08/2021

¶33

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

Anandharaj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandharaj v. State Rep 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

P.Venkadesan Vs State Rep.by

A.Arunachalam Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Raja Vs State Rep.by

Chithra Vs State Represented by

Jayanthakumar Vs the State Rep by

M/S.Jagannath Textile Company Ltd., Vs S.Manoharan