Allowed¶23

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, v. M.Vellaisamy

Madras HC4 Sept 2025CRL A/1402/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL A No. 1402 of 2025; T.V.Thamilselvi J.; decision 04-09-2025; Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. v. M.Vellaisamy; appeal against acquittal STC.No.323 of 2017, JM No.I Ariyalur, dated 20.03.2023; dismissal for nonappearance excused; Section 378 Cr.P.C; Section 419 BNSS; appeal allowed; direction to co-operate with trial proceedings; Government Advocate (Crl.Side) V.Meganathan for respondent; counsel A.Sivaji for appellant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; appellant directed to co-operate with the proceedings before the trial Court. ¶23

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Vs M.Vellaisamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL A. NO. 1402 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-09-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶4

CRL A NO. 1402 of 2025

¶5

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Rep. By its power of attorney P.Paneer S/o.Periyasamy, Assistant Manager Marketing, Marketing Regional Officer, Trichy.

¶6

Now Rep. By Mr.R.Jayachandiran, Unit Head (Old Plant) Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Ariyalur – 621 729.

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

M.Vellaisamy S/o.Muthusamy

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C and 419 of BNSS, praying to set aside the acquittal order in STC.No.323 of 2017 dated 20.03.2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur.

¶12

For Petitioner(s):

¶13

Mr.A.Sivaji

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the acquittal order passed in STC.No.323 of 2017 dated 20.03.2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ariyalur.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, due to nonappearance, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court. He further submitted that owing to lack of communication, he was unable to appear before the Court.

¶21

Heard, Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.V.Meganathan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

¶22

On considering the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds the reason assigned by the appellant to be justifiable. The appellant is directed to co-operate with the proceedings.

¶23