Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Vs Arul

Upon perusing the documents and case records of the above C.C.No.400428 of 2016 transmitted to this Court and hearing the arguments of Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State and hearing the jurisdiction probation officer this Court passes the following

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶18

Prelude:

¶19

“ This dedicated bench is for implementing the pilot project to identify and dispose of criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years pending at trial, appeal or revision stage for

¶20

more than 3 years and also offences like Section 506(ii) of IPC and others, which may carry a punishment of more than 3 years in the state of Tamil Nadu with reference to the 14 Districts coming under the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court”.

¶21

This Dedicated Bench has taken the C.C.No.400428 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor Taluk, Tirunelveli District as Suo motu Special Tr.Case.(MD) No.16449 of 2025 in Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.).(MD).No.1014 of 2025, upon proper scrutinity and suitability as a fit case warranting the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to pass suitable order in the said C.C., pending more than nine years without any precedent value in this pilot project.

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶25

Brief facts of the prosecution case in C.C.No.400428 of 2016 :

¶26

On 21.09.2013, during the annual maintenance of the windshield, an iron chain covering the generator accidentally broke, causing the generator to fall and resulting in an accident that led to the death of two persons. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No. 267 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and upon completion of investigation, final report filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.400428 of 2016 and the same was pending without trial for more than nine years .

¶27

4. Discussion:

¶28

4.1 Today, the learned Judicial Magistrate has appeared through video conference. The accused and the police official were present before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. The accused has filed an admission petition and pleaded guilty and seeks leniency in imposing punishment.

¶29

4.2. This Court explains the contents of the accusation to the accused, and he admits the contents of the admission petition and pleads guilty. Thus, this court satisfies the admission petition filed without any coercion or threat.

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶33

4.3.In view of the above admission and pleading of guilty of the accused, and considering the material allegation made in the final report did not relate to the economic and heinous offence and his conduct is good and the case is pending for more than nine years without trial and the same impinge the fair and speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to admit the petition and convict the accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC .

¶34

5.Discussion on the question of sentence :-

¶35

5.1. Hon'ble Thiru. Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy has considered

¶36

number of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments and passed order in suo moto W.P.(MD) No. 618 of 2025 on 01.09.2025 and framed sentencing policy with reference to the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. This case also comes under said parameter as the accident is not due to any aggravated or egregious conduct .

¶37

5.2. The accused is aged about 49 years and he is working as a

¶38

supervisor and he has not involved in further offence and considering the mitigating circumstances, and following the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶42

Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 SCC Online SC 984, 2025 INSC 1014 (K.Ponnammal

¶43

Vs. State) and also taken into account that the victim received the compensation and he also not interested in prosecuting the case and the accused also regularly appearing before the Court for the past nine years and also on the reiterated the principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.W.Mohiuddin V. State of Maharashtra reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567 and B.G.Goswarmi V. Delhi Administration reported in (1974) 3 SCC 85 that delay itself amounts to punishment, which must weigh in sentencing and disposal, this court is inclined to impose fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with default sentence of two months simple imprisonment.

¶44

6.Accordingly, this Suo Motu Special Tr.(MD). case stands closed on the following terms:

¶45

6.1. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 304(A)

¶46

of IPC in C.C.No.400428 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

6.2. The accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

¶48

5/7

¶49

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

¶50

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶51

27.10.2025

¶52

Ten Thousand only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor Taluk, Tirunelveli District , and in default, he is directed to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶53

pal

¶54

Note to the Trial Court : This order is digitally signed and communicated electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

¶55

6/7

¶56

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

¶57

Suo Motu TR.(MD).No. 16449 of 2025

¶58

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶59

pal

¶60

Order made in SUO MOTU TR.(MD).No.16449 of 2025