Remanded

Sathyamurthy @ Sathya v. State by

Madras HC8 Sept 2021CRL RC/332/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC regarding an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the High Court set aside a conviction because the lower appellate court pronounced judgment in absentia without hearing counsel or appointing an advocate.

What did the court decide?

The conviction passed in Crl.A.No.21/2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Mahalir Sessions Court.

Sathyamurthy @ Sathya Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL SLIP

¶2

The Petitioner/Accused viz, Sathyamurthy @ Sathya
S/o.Kanakaraj, be and hereby was directed to be released on bail
as per order of this Court, dated 23.04.2015 made in M.P.No.1 of
2015 in Crl.R.C.NO.332 of 2015.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 08.09.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

CRL.R.C.NO.332 OF 2015

¶8

Sathyamurthy @ Sathya

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

.. Vs ..

¶11

State by Inspector of Police,
G.I.Uthagamandalam Police Station,
The Nilgiris
(Crime No.245/2007)

¶12

 ....Respondent

¶13

Prayer :- Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the
learned Mahalir Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Uthagamandalam, The
Nilgiris and set aside the judgment passed by him made in
C.A.No.21 of 2010 dated 03.02.2015, confirming the conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Uthagamandalam the Nilgiris made in C.C.No.235 of 2007 dated
24.06.2010, convicting the petitioner herein for the offence
under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Woman Act and sentencing him to undergo one year R.I and to pay
fine of Rs.10000/- in default to undergo three months S.I.

¶14

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

¶15

 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Shanmugam

¶16

 For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja,
 Government Advocate
 (Crl.Side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal revision is filed by the convicted accused
for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, wherein he was sentenced to undergo one
year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay Rs.10,000/- fine.

¶19

2. It appears that when Criminal Appeal No.21/2010 was
listed before the Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam, the learned
counsel for the appellant has not appeared and hence in the
absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment
has been pronounced by the lower Appellate Court.

¶20

3. It is settled law that when there is a conviction, the
appellate Court either must hear the learned counsel for the
appellant, or appoint a Legal-Aid-Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

¶21

4. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of
accordingly and the conviction passed in Crl.A.No.21/2010 is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Mahalir
Sessions Court (Fast Track), Udhagamandalam to dispose of the
same in accordance with law within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(L.A)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

nvi

¶26

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

¶27

To

¶28

1. The Mahalir Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Uthagamandalam

¶29

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam the Nilgiris.

¶30

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶31

4. The Inspector of Police, G.I.Uthagamandalam Police Station, The Nilgiris.

¶32

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Copy To

¶34

 The Section Officer,
 Criminal Section,
 High Court, Madras.

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.332 of 2015

¶36

PA(CO)
RLP(05/10/2021)

¶37

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

Sathyamurthy @ Sathya v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyamurthy @ Sathya v. State 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

Dhanabakkiyam Vs State Rep.by Its

Mr.Syed Kamal Batcha, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

R.Stephenraj, M/45 Vs the State Rep.by

S. Sathymoorthy, 36 Yrs, Vs G.A. Palanisamy, 63 Yrs

B.Muruga Perumal, Vs S.Prabakaran, S/O.Subramani

M/S.R.R.Plots Private Limited Vs S.Prabhakar Lal