Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 279, 337, and 304-A – This case involves a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused, Srinivasan, challenging the lower courts’ judgments that convicted him under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC, related to a tractor accident that resulted in four deaths and several injuries. The prosecution’s case was based on a complaint that the tractor-trailer, driven by the accused, capsized due to a broken bolt while transporting electric poles, allegedly due to rash and negligent driving.

The key argument by the defense was the lack of evidence proving rash or negligent driving. The defense argued the accident was due to a mechanical failure (the bolt snapping) and overloading insisted upon by Electricity Board officials, not due to the driver’s negligence.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 239 – This case concerns a Criminal Revision against an order dismissing a discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused number 14 in C.C.No.72 of 2021, sought discharge from charges under Sections 147, 294(b), 427, 448, 506(1), 457, 468 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case is that the accused, including the petitioner, unlawfully assembled and trespassed into the complainant’s house, abused her, caused damage, forcibly obtained her signature on a bogus document, and stole articles worth Rs.1,10,000/-.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was forged, there were delays in lodging the FIR and sending it to the court, and that procedures under Sections 41-A and 50-A Cr.P.C.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Royappan Lourdu Jeyaseelan, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, while working as an Upper Division Clerk, amassed disproportionate assets during the check period of 2007-2009.

The trial court found the appellant guilty, stating that his assets were 181% disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant argued that the trial court made calculation errors, and several income sources and loans were not adequately considered.

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]

The petitioner, wife of the detenu Arul, challenges the detention order issued against her husband under the Goondas Act. The detenu was accused in a crime involving the death of one Mr. Armstrong and was branded as a Goonda due to his alleged involvement, deemed prejudicial to public order.

The primary argument is that the detaining authority passed the order on the same day the proposal was received, making it impossible to properly review the extensive materials (around 1000 pages).

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules  2007 Rule 13(3) &  Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 35 – The case concerns the determination of juvenility of Respondent No. 2, accused of murder under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant challenged the High Court’s order that upheld the Trial Court’s decision declaring Respondent No. 2 a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 156(3), 197, 200 and 482 – The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police (A1), sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 82 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, which stemmed from a 2008 private complaint filed by the first respondent.

The first respondent alleged that the petitioner and other police officers had assaulted him, threatened him, and falsely implicated him in a case after he was arrested in Crime No.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 498A and 304B; Indian Evidence Act – Section 113B – This case involves a criminal appeal filed by Accused 1 and 3 against the judgment of the Mahila Court, Madurai, convicting them under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The deceased, wife of Accused 1 and daughter-in-law of Accused 3, allegedly committed suicide due to harassment for dowry.

The prosecution’s case rested on the claim that the accused repeatedly demanded money from the deceased to establish an electrical shop for Accused 1, causing her severe distress. The father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS 2023) Section 80, 81, 84 and 85: Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 Rule 25(6) – This common order addresses multiple criminal original petitions highlighting systemic issues within the Tamil Nadu judicial and police systems. The court expresses concern over the arbitrary actions of police and judicial authorities, leading to erosion of public trust and hardship for complainants.

The cases fall into two categories: delays in Magistrates taking charge sheets on file and non-execution of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs).

The court notes significant delays in Magistrates acting on charge sheets, violating Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, Rule 25(6).

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Section 248(1), 363(5) – This case involves a criminal revision petition against an order condoning a delay of 1917 days in filing an appeal against an acquittal judgment. The initial case, C.C.No.391 of 2018, involved allegations under Sections 468, 471, 474 r/w 120B IPC, where the accused (including the petitioner) were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram on 14.09.2019.

The defacto complainant (first respondent) claimed ignorance of the acquittal until 02.11.2023, citing his age, lack of communication from the court/police, and the Covid-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay. The petitioner countered that the first respondent was aware of the case’s progress, as he had testified and was also contesting another case (C.C.No.382 of 2018) in the same court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 239 – The Criminal Revision Cases were filed against the order of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, dismissing the discharge petitions filed by the accused (A1, A2, A4, A5, A6) under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.411 of 2020. The case originated from a complaint lodged by the second respondent, leading to an FIR in Crime No.119 of 2019 for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, and 355 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A counter-complaint from the first accused resulted in FIR No.