Allowed

Adam, Age 37 v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC6 Aug 2021CRL RC/913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision under CrPC 397 and 401. The Court held that a criminal appeal cannot be disposed of without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Order of lower court without appellant's counsel was set aside and matter remitted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; matter remitted to Principal Sessions Judge with direction to appoint Legal Aid Advocate and dispose of appeal within 12 weeks.

Adam, Age 37 Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

The Appellants / Accused Namely, Adam S/o.Beer Muhammed
(A1) Madhar Beevi W/o Bear Muhammed (A2) were directed to be
released on bail as per order of this court dated 18.07.2017 in
made in Crl.MP.8611/2017 in Crl RC.913/2017.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 06.08.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.913 of 2017

¶8

1. Adam

¶9

2. Madhar Beevi... Petitioners

¶10

.. Vs ..

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vandavasi,
Tiruvannamalai District
Crime No.06/2002

¶12

 ....Respondent

¶13

Prayer :- Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to
judgment dated 07.11.2016 passed in C.A.No.70 of 2006 on the file
of the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in confirming order dated
14.06.2006 passed in C.C.No.323 of 2002 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, set
aside the same.

¶14

 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Mani

¶15

The appellants are the convicted accused in C.C.No.323 of
2002 for alleged offences under Section 498 (A) I.P.C and Section
47 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶16

2. When the matter was listed for hearing, the learned
counsel for the appellant is not present and hence the learned

¶17

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

¶18

Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai has chosen to dispose of it on
hearing the learned Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) alone. The said
order is under challenge in this revision.

¶19

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant

¶20

and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is trite in law that in the criminal appeal, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced for an offence, the same cannot be disposed of without giving an opportunity to the appellant.

¶21

4. In the event of an appellant's counsel not coming
forward to argue the case, the Court has to appoint Legal-Aid-
Advocate and to hear him and thereafter dispose of the matter in
accordance with law and hence in view of the above settled
preposition of law, I am inclined to allow the Criminal Revision.

¶22

5. The conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.70 of
2006 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
learned Principal Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai to deal with the
matter in accordance with law.

¶23

6. If any event of the appellant's counsel not being
represented, as observed earlier, a Legal-Aid-Advocate of
suitable experience in the criminal side, be appointed as Legal-
Aid-Advocate to the accused and the appeal be disposed of on
merits by the Sessions Court.

¶24

7. With these observations, this Criminal Revision is
allowed and the Registry is directed to send back the papers to
the learned Principal Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and the learned Principal Session Judge, after observing
the formalities, shall hear and dispose of the criminal appeal
within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

nvi

¶29

To

¶30

1. The Principal Sessions Judge,

¶31

Tiruvannamalai

¶32

2.The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.

¶33

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

¶34

`3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,` `Thiruvannamalai (For Information)`
`4. The Superintendent,` `Central Prison, Vellore.`
`5. The Superintendent,` `Special Prison for women, Vellore.`
`6. The Sub-Inspector of Police,` `All Women Police Station,` `Vandavasi,` `Tiruvannamalai District.`
`7. The Public Prosecutor,` `High Court of Madras,` `Madras.`
`Copy To:`
`The Section Officer,` `Criminal Section,(Records)` `High Court, Madras.`
`+1cc to Mr.P.Mani Advocate, S.R.No.38749`

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.913 of 2017

¶36

LN(CO)
SB(27/08/2021)

¶37

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

Adam, Age 37 v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adam, Age 37 v. the State of Tamilnadu 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

L.Bhavanikumar, M/38 Years Vs J.Sangeethalakshmi, F/35 Years

The State Rep. by Vs Vinothkumar

Joshine Antony, W/O.Antony Vs the State Representd by

S.Thirunavukkarasu, M/a 44 Vs E.Athikeasavan, M/a 68 Yearss

Sivamani Vs State by

Ramesh Vs State by