You may also like...
-
15.Thus, this Court is of the view that from the materials produced, petitioner has not made out a case for prosecuting respondent for the offences of defamation under Section 500 IPC and the Courts below have rightly decided the issue and dismissed the complaint. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge, therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sli 14.03.2023 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order To: 1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. 2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Chengalpattu. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J. sli Pre-delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.2704 of 2023 14.03.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published March 23, 2023
-
-
division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam observed that the government had stated that taluk and district-level task force was keeping a ‘vulture’s eye’. Had the task force done its work diligently, the excessive sand mining could have been prevented. The judges suo motu impleaded principal secretaries of industries and revenue as respondents in the petition. The judges directed that the status report should also answer as to how the illegally quarried sand from the patta lands was transported without any permits given. The case was adjourned to August 5 for further hearing.
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 16, 2020