Search Judgments

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) – This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, which found the appellant guilty of possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a Customs Officer, amassed wealth of Rs. 24,94,400 during a specific period. The initial check period was later altered, and the disproportionate assets were calculated to be Rs.64,62,871.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 6, 10; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 506(i); Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 164(5), 313 – This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, convicting the appellant for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. The appellant, a noon meal organizer, was accused of committing aggravated penetrative and sexual assault on two minor victims.

The prosecution presented evidence, including statements from the victims recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., medical reports, and witness testimonies. The defense argued that medical evidence didn’t corroborate the victim’s testimonies and cited delays in filing the complaint.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – This case involves allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misuse of official position against two accused, A. Selvaraju (Accused 1), a Senior Store Keeper at Salem Steel Plant, and R. Sekar (Accused 2), associated with Trichy RK Steel and Alloys Private Limited.

The prosecution alleged that Accused 1 manipulated records to undervalue scrap material, enabling Accused 2’s company to purchase it at a lower price, resulting in losses for Salem Steel Plant.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Sections 69 and 318(2) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.375 of 2025, pending before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur District, for offenses under Sections 69 and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage, leading to the filing of the charge sheet.

The de-facto complainant appeared before the Court and stated that she intended to marry another person and did not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, even filing a Joint Compromise Memo expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings.

The Court considered Section 69 of the BNS, which deals with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or making a false promise of marriage.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Section 59(i), 42, 43, 46, 47 & 3(1)(p) – The case involves a challenge to a complaint filed under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), concerning Nestle Nan Excella Pro Follow up formula Powder-2 that allegedly caused illness in a baby. The respondent/Food Safety Officer initiated prosecution against the seller, distributor, marketing agent, and manufacturer based on a WhatsApp complaint and a subsequent analysis report declaring the sample as “Unsafe Food”. The petitioners, the marketing agent and manufacturer, sought to quash the complaint primarily on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the FSSA.

Key arguments raised by the petitioners included the Food Analyst’s failure to provide the analysis report within 14 days as required by Section 42(2) of FSSA, the Designated Officer’s delay in sending recommendations for prosecution, the failure to preserve parts of the sample for re-testing as mandated under Section 47(1)(c), and the analysis being conducted in a laboratory not accredited by NABL at the time of testing, violating Section 43(1) read with Section 3(p) of FSSA.

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 9(1), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9AA, 11D – This case involves a petition to quash a private complaint (E.O.C.C.No.166 of 1997) filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise against M/s.Printwraps (A1), its Managing Partner (A2), and an ex-partner (A3) for violations of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The complaint stemmed from an inspection in 1992, where non-duty paid goods and incriminating invoices were found.

The petitioner (A3) sought quashment mainly because the Managing Partner (A2) had passed away, leaving A1 without representation, and also claimed he was merely an ex-partner. Previously, the court had ruled that A3 could not be compelled to represent the firm.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 175(3) – This criminal revision petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner’s plea under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking alteration of penal provisions to Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and monitored investigation.

The petitioner alleged a romantic relationship with the accused, leading to sexual intimacy on the false promise of marriage. After conceiving and aborting the child at the accused’s insistence, the accused refused to marry her. The petitioner argued that the refusal to marry, post the enactment of BNS, invoked Section 69 BNS, 2023.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Sections 138 and 141 – This case addresses whether a complaint under the NI Act is maintainable against the Chairman/Trustee of a Trust, when a cheque issued on behalf of the Trust is dishonored, but the Trust itself is not named as an accused. The appellant argued that a Trust is not a legal entity capable of being sued and that the Chairman, as the authorized signatory, is responsible for the Trust’s day-to-day business. The respondent contended that a Trust is a juristic person and must be included as a party. Various High Court judgments were cited supporting both sides.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, initially by the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, and subsequently confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.

The petitioner was convicted for one-year imprisonment and asked to pay Rs. 4,90,000 as compensation. During the pendency of the Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, the parties reached an amicable settlement, with the Petitioner depositing the full cheque amount of Rs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash a complaint in C.C.No.3958 of 2016, pending before the V Fast Track Court at Saidapet, Chennai, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner (A4), a Director of A1 Company, was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, against a due amount of Rs.1,61,08,212/- for purchased computer peripherals.

The petitioner argued that a previous quash petition was dismissed with directions for speedy trial which was not followed. He also claimed that he was a Non-Executive Director, not involved in daily operations, and had resigned before the cause of action.