G.Mary Pushpa Santhi v. R.Krishnan

Madras HC19 Nov 2025CRL RC/1436/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision, Madras High Court, T.V.Thamilselvi J., 19-11-2025; Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS; dismissal of appeal for no representation / want of representation; restoration of appeal to file; Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur; Crl.A.No.61 of 2024; STC No.198 of 2022; transfer of case on jurisdiction without notice; accused aged over 60; bona fide explanation; due notice to both parties; respondent no appearance; Krishnagiri/Shoolagiri parties; appeal reinstated for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 for want of representation set aside; the appeal is to be taken on file within two weeks from the date of the order, and the first appellate Court is to hear it after issuing due notice to both parties, proceeding in accordance with law. ¶¶27

G.Mary Pushpa Santhi Vs R.Krishnan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 dismissing Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 (the appeal by the accused against the order in STC No.198 of 2022) for want of representation should be set aside, so that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, may hear the appeal.

¶¶18

Court's answer

Considering the reasons stated by the petitioner — that during pendency of the appeal the case was transferred on the question of jurisdiction without due notice, leaving the petitioner unable to attend — the impugned order dismissing the appeal for want of representation is liable to be set aside.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The appeal in Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 is ordered to be taken on file within two weeks from the date of this order.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

After issuing due notice to both parties, the first appellate Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V.Thamilselvi J.), CRL RC No. 1436 of 2025, decided 19-11-2025: A criminal revision under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS was preferred by the petitioner (described in the order as the accused in STC No.198 of 2022) challenging the dismissal of her appeal Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on 03.03.2025, for want of representation. Counsel for the petitioner explained that during the pendency of the appeal the case had been transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on the question of jurisdiction without issuing due notice, and that due to lack of communication she could not appear; she was aged over 60 years and her defence remained valid. Notice was sent to the respondent but none appeared. Holding the petitioner's explanation sufficient, the Court found the impugned order liable to be set aside, ordered Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 to be taken back on file within two weeks, and directed the first appellate Court, after issuing due notice to both parties, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Criminal Revision Case was ordered on these terms. No monetary relief involved; no precedent was relied upon.

¶1

CRL RC No. 1436 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL RC No. 1436 of 2025

¶6

G.Mary Pushpa Santhi W/o.Murugesan, 2-315, C, Devarkuttapallai Village, Chennapalli Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

R.Krishnan S/o.Ramasamy, Mel Gummanur Village, Melmalai Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER

¶12

Criminal Revision case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, prays to setting the aside the judgment passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on 03.03.2025 in Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 against the STC No.198 of 2022 and consequently direct the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on 03.03.2025, in Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 against STC.NO.198 of 2022

¶13

For Petitioner(s): N.Sivaprakash For Respondent(s): No appearance

¶14

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

¶15

CRL RC No. 1436 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has filed this revision, to set aside the judgment passed by

¶18

the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on 03.03.2025 in Crl.A.No.61 of 2024 against the order passed in STC No.198 of 2022 and consequently to direct the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, to hear Crl.A.No.61 of 2024. The appeal was dismissed for norepresentation on 03.03.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this revision.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the case was transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, on the question of jurisdiction, without issuing due notice. Due to lack of communication, the petitioner was unable to appear on that day. He further submitted that the petitioner still has a valid defence and, being aged about more than 60 years, the explanation offered is bona fide and justified.

¶20