Disposed

S.R.Ravichandran v. State by

Madras HC22 Oct 2024CRL MP/14629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted by Special Court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sought suspension of sentence pending appeal. The High Court suspended the substantive sentence and enlarged him on bail with conditions including monthly appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioner to be enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each for like sum, with monthly appearance condition.

S.R.Ravichandran Vs State by — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶3

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶4

Petitioner / appellant was convicted for the offences U/s.7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo one (1) year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo two (2) months S.I. for offence U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo one (1) year of R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo two (2) months S.I. for offences U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, under judgment in Special C.C.No.47 of 2011 dated 27.09.2024. Hence, the petitioner seeks suspension of sentence.

¶5

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial Court has suspended the sentence till 25.10.2024 and the petitioner is in bail now. The learned counsel further submits that there are several infirmities and

¶6

1/4

¶7

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

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶9

inconsistencies found in the prosecution case and there are contradictions in

¶10

the material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

3.Heard Dr.C.E.Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and there are arguable points involved in the appeal, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner and that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

¶13

5.The substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended accordingly, and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction 2/4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶16

of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶17

22.10.2024

¶18

(2/2)

¶19

Note to office : Issue order copy on 22.10.2024

¶20

3/4

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶23

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶24

kas

¶25

Crl.M.P.No.14629 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2024

¶26

22.10.2024 (2/2)

¶27

4/4

¶28

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

S.R.Ravichandran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R.Ravichandran 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

K.Ezhil Rani Vs the State Rep.by

G. Deva Anand @ Devakumar, Vs State by the Deputy

Mr.R.Tamilselvan Vs Mr.E.Thanigachalam

Agalya, Aged 44 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

C.Manickam Vs the Director

R.Thirumalaisamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by