Dismissed

Pazhanivel, M/A.70 v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Oct 2023CRL A/14/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard a criminal appeal filed to set aside a conviction under the POCSO Act. The appellant was reported dead by the Additional Public Prosecutor, who filed a status report with a death certificate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as abated.

What did the court decide?

This case is disposed of by dismissing the appeal as abated due to the death of the appellant.

Pazhanivel, M/A.70 Vs Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

The Honourable MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

¶7

Pazhanivel

¶8

...Appellant / Accused

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Inspector of Police W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai.

¶11

...Respondent / Complainant

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records in S.C.No.211 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act 2012/Mahila Court, Chennai - 104, and to set aside the order of conviction dated 18.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.211 of 2016 and to acquit the Appellant/Accused from the charge.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.T.Saravanan Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Ms.G.V.Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/4

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant is the sole Accused in S.C.No.211 of 2016 dated 18.12.2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act 2012/Mahila Court, Chennai - 104.

¶19

When the case came up for hearing on earlier occasion on 03.10.2023, this Court had nominated a Counsel from the Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court and also issued direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act 2012/Mahila Court, Chennai, to issue warrant to secure the Accused in the light of the judgment of the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act 2012/Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.211 of 2016 dated 18.12.2017. The Inspector of Police, W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai, was directed to secure the Appellant/Accused and produce him before this Court by 10.10.2023.

¶20

Today, 03.10.2023, when the case came up for hearing, the

¶21

learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Appellant/Accused is reported dead.

¶22

2/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

¶25

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report from

¶26

the Inspector of Police, W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai, along with the death certificate of the Appellant/Accused. The same is recorded.

¶27

Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public

¶28

Prosecutor, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as abated .

¶29

The Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court is directed to

¶30

nominate the same Counsel for different cases.

¶31

10.10.2023

¶32

cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶33

¶34

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act 2012/ Mahila Court, Chennai - 104.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai.

¶36

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

4.The Section Officer, VR Records, High Court, Chennai.

¶38

3/4

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

¶41

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,

¶42

cda

¶43

Crl.A.No.14 of 2018

¶44

10.10.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/4

Pazhanivel, M/A.70 v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhanivel, M/A.70 v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthik Vs Gayathri Gnaneshwari

Gunasekaran Vs State by

Bairappa, Aged 61 Years, Vs State by the

Kutti @ Kumar, Aged 24 Years, Vs State by:

Ramachandran Vs the State Rep by

R.Karthika, Aged 28 Years Vs State Rep. by