SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.R.C.No.654 of 2022 Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court.  It is important to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. the State of Gujarat (cited supra) itself has clearly held that the purpose of further investigation is that any person who has wrongly been prosecuted cannot suffer the same and any person, who was actually committed the offence, should not escape punishment.  In that view of the matter, since bringing out the truth is the primordial purpose of investigation and the present application serves the said purpose, I am of the view that the application filed by the prosecution even after the commencement of the trial in this case is maintainable and I answered the question accordingly.

Uncategorized

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.R.C.No.654 of 2022 Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court.  It is important to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. the State of Gujarat (cited supra) itself has clearly held that the purpose of further investigation is that any person who has wrongly been prosecuted cannot suffer the same and any person, who was actually committed the offence, should not escape punishment.  In that view of the matter, since bringing out the truth is the primordial purpose of investigation and the present application serves the said purpose, I am of the view that the application filed by the prosecution even after the commencement of the trial in this case is maintainable and I answered the question accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS   Reserved on :  22.06.2022   Pronounced on :   01.07.2022   CORAM :   THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.R.C.No.654 of 2022     Ganesan                          ...

உரிய சிகிச்சைக்கு பிறகே ரிவால்டோ யானை காட்டில் விடப்பட்டதாக தமிழக govt pleader Muthukamar தெரிவித்தார். Case dismissed cj bencj

Uncategorized

உரிய சிகிச்சைக்கு பிறகே ரிவால்டோ யானை காட்டில் விடப்பட்டதாக தமிழக govt pleader Muthukamar தெரிவித்தார். Case dismissed cj bencj

உரிய சிகிச்சைக்கு பிறகே ரிவால்டோ யானை காட்டில் விடப்பட்டதாக தமிழக முதன்மை தலைமை வனப் பாதுகாவலர் தெரிவித்ததை ஏற்றுக்கொண்ட சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம், அதுதொடர்பான வழக்கை முடித்துவைத்துள்ளது. தும்பிக்கை சுருங்கி சுவாச பிரச்னையால் பாதிக்கப்பட்டு, மசினக்குடி பகுதியில் சுற்றி வந்த ரிவால்டோ யானைக்கு கடந்த ஆண்டு ஜூலை...

This Court in a judgment reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1948 PALANI & OTHERS Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION AND OTHERS has held that passing a common order against the members of the two parties is not in accordance with law.  As per Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a joint enquiry can be held only in respect of members or association of the same group but not against the members of two rival groups.  Clubbing both the groups in one proceedings and directing them to face a joint enquiry is not in accordance with law. In such a view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order dated 9/12/2021, made in M.C.No.126/2021/Aa1 passed by the Sub-divisional

Uncategorized

This Court in a judgment reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1948 PALANI & OTHERS Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION AND OTHERS has held that passing a common order against the members of the two parties is not in accordance with law.  As per Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a joint enquiry can be held only in respect of members or association of the same group but not against the members of two rival groups.  Clubbing both the groups in one proceedings and directing them to face a joint enquiry is not in accordance with law. In such a view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order dated 9/12/2021, made in M.C.No.126/2021/Aa1 passed by the Sub-divisional

ÁIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:  23/6/2022 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl. O.P. No.5361 of 2022 a n d M.P.No.2923 of 2022 SelvaArasan Ranjithkumar...

Considering the said fact, I am of the view that the period of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be modified as from ten years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in all other respects are confirmed.           Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Index : yes/no                                                                             22.06.2022 Speaking order/Non-speaking order drm To The Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpet. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,   drm

Uncategorized

Considering the said fact, I am of the view that the period of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be modified as from ten years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in all other respects are confirmed.           Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Index : yes/no                                                                             22.06.2022 Speaking order/Non-speaking order drm To The Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpet. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,   drm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS   DATED : 22.06.2022   CORAM :   THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.A.No.103 of 2019   Mari                                                                        ..          Appellant Vs The State...

Judges mahadevan j judge Athikesavalu இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை கோவில்களுக்கு சொந்தமான சொத்துகள் மூலம் வருகின்ற வருவாயை முறையாக வசூலித்தால், தமிழக அரசால் பற்றாக்குறை இல்லாத பட்ஜெட்டை தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியும் என சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

Uncategorized

Judges mahadevan j judge Athikesavalu இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை கோவில்களுக்கு சொந்தமான சொத்துகள் மூலம் வருகின்ற வருவாயை முறையாக வசூலித்தால், தமிழக அரசால் பற்றாக்குறை இல்லாத பட்ஜெட்டை தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியும் என சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

  இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை கோவில்களுக்கு சொந்தமான சொத்துகள் மூலம் வருகின்ற வருவாயை முறையாக வசூலித்தால், தமிழக அரசால் பற்றாக்குறை இல்லாத பட்ஜெட்டை தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியும் என சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது. கோவில் சிலைகள் மற்றும் நகைகள் பாதுகாப்புத் தொடர்பாக உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தாமாக...

Though arrested accused are incarcerating some period of time, considering the serious offence committed by them and also the reason there are poor farmers affected by the petitioners, therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the criminal original petitions are dismissed. 27.06.2022  lok G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. A.Damodaran Addl .public prosecutor

Uncategorized

Though arrested accused are incarcerating some period of time, considering the serious offence committed by them and also the reason there are poor farmers affected by the petitioners, therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the criminal original petitions are dismissed. 27.06.2022  lok G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. A.Damodaran Addl .public prosecutor

Crl.O.P.Nos.14248, 14388 & 14573 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 420 & 120(B) altered into Sections...

(vii) It is also made clear that only qualified teachers be appointed strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RTE Act. Post the writ petition on 07.07.2022 at 02.15 p.m. On that day, the Commissioner of School Education, Chennai shall file a report before this Court. 01.07.2022 Jvm Note: Issue Order today D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. Jvm 8 W.P.No.16704 of 2022 and WMP.No.16013 of 2022

Uncategorized

(vii) It is also made clear that only qualified teachers be appointed strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RTE Act. Post the writ petition on 07.07.2022 at 02.15 p.m. On that day, the Commissioner of School Education, Chennai shall file a report before this Court. 01.07.2022 Jvm Note: Issue Order today D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. Jvm 8 W.P.No.16704 of 2022 and WMP.No.16013 of 2022

W.P.No.16704 of 2022 and WMP.No.16013 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. According to the writ petitioner, the second respondent / Commissioner of School Education has issued a Circular dated 23.06.2022, permitting the Chief Educational Officer of...

already held by this court, the first respondent, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 148(2), has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 148(1). Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the second respondent has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings under section 129 and hence, the notice dated 14.12.2018 issued by him is also held to be invalid. The invalid notices so issued by the respondents vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings initiated against the appellant. Admittedly, no notice under section 148 was issued by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, for reassessment of the return of income of the appellant, within the time frame stipulated under the Act. In this case, the limitation period of six years for reopening the assessment for the year 2011-12 under section 147 of the Act, came to an end on 31.03.2018. In such circumstances, there is no requirement for this court to go into the other issue based on the factual matrix projected by the appellant i.e., whether the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all the material particulars that are necessary for assessment for the relevant assessment year. In the ultimate analysis, the writ appeal stands allowed by setting aside the notices impugned in the writ petition and the order impugned herein. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.  (R.M.D., J.)         (J.S.N.P., J.)          27.06.2022

Uncategorized

already held by this court, the first respondent, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 148(2), has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 148(1). Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the second respondent has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings under section 129 and hence, the notice dated 14.12.2018 issued by him is also held to be invalid. The invalid notices so issued by the respondents vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings initiated against the appellant. Admittedly, no notice under section 148 was issued by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, for reassessment of the return of income of the appellant, within the time frame stipulated under the Act. In this case, the limitation period of six years for reopening the assessment for the year 2011-12 under section 147 of the Act, came to an end on 31.03.2018. In such circumstances, there is no requirement for this court to go into the other issue based on the factual matrix projected by the appellant i.e., whether the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all the material particulars that are necessary for assessment for the relevant assessment year. In the ultimate analysis, the writ appeal stands allowed by setting aside the notices impugned in the writ petition and the order impugned herein. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.  (R.M.D., J.)         (J.S.N.P., J.)          27.06.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :  27.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Appeal No. 2493 of 2021 and C.M.P....

this Court directs the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges to return the original certificates to the respective petitioners, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15.06.2022 vsi2 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

Uncategorized

this Court directs the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges to return the original certificates to the respective petitioners, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15.06.2022 vsi2 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

W.P. No.14143 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.13401 and 13402 of 2022 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. Heard Mr.P.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The learned Government Advocate has...

போதை பொருள் 7 years தண்டனை அரசு தரப்பில் அரசு சிறப்பு வழக்கறிஞர் கே.ஜே.சரவணன்

Uncategorized

போதை பொருள் 7 years தண்டனை அரசு தரப்பில் அரசு சிறப்பு வழக்கறிஞர் கே.ஜே.சரவணன்

இரண்டரை கிலோ கஞ்சா உள்ளிட்ட போதைப் பொருள்கள் விற்பனை செய்த வழக்கில் இருவருக்கு தலா 12 ஆண்டுகளும், ஒருவருக்கு 7 ஆண்டுகளும் சிறை தண்டனை விதித்து சென்னை போதைப் பொருள் தடுப்பு வழக்குகளுக்கான சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. திருவள்ளூர் மாவட்டம் கொளத்தூரில் உள்ள செந்தில் நகரில் இருசக்கர...