Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022
1. Kalyanasundaram
2. Suresh
3. Subburaj @ Subbiah
4. Mahalingam
... Petitioners
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
Watrap Police Station, Watrap.
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the impugned order of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, passed in
Crl.MP.No.2307 of 2022 in CA.No.84 of 2022, dated 17.08.2022, set aside the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr. Thalaimutharasu G
For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the impugned order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in Crl.MP.No.2307 of 2022 in CA.No.84 of 2022, dated 17.08.2022.
2.The facts in brief:
As per Judgment, dated 29.07.2022 in S.C.No.118 of 2014, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.3,000/- fine, for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 325 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused persons preferred an appeal in C.A.No.84 of 2022, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. Pending the above said appeal, the petition filed by the petitioners to suspend the sentence was rejected by the Appellate Court, stating that there were several previous cases, pending against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022
3.Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred, on the ground that the weapon that was used by the second accused is not specifically stated and there was no evidence to show that the fourth accused caused assault. As per the prosecution, the first accused caused incised injury, but as per the evidence of Doctor, there were cut injuries. Hence, the nature of weapon used in committing the offence is not properly established.
4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that as per the evidence of PW10, cut injuries were made. Apart from that there is a clear finding in the judgment of the trial Court that over the weapon used and nature of injuries.
5.Heard both side. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the previous cases pending against the petitioners were already disposed of and as on date, no case is pending against them. In contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would produce a list of cases, wherein, against the first accused, eight cases were pending, out of which, seven cases were disposed of. Against the second accused, eight cases were pending and all the cases were disposed of. Against the third accused, eight cases were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022 pending, out of which, some of the cases have been disposed of. Against the fourth accused, twelve cases were pending, out of which, some of the cases were disposed of. Whether the disposed cases ended in acquittal or conviction is not clear on record.
6.This is a case of revision. Unless the petitioners are able to establish the fact that there is irregularity or illegality committed by the Appellate Court, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court cannot be interfered with. Moreover, it is only an intermediate order and not a final order. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Appellate Court at any point of time, namely, they can file successive applications, seeking suspension of sentence. Since the petitioners are habitually involved in various cases, if they are released on bail, after suspending their sentence, there is every likelihood of absconding.
7.Moreover, the petitioners can revive the petition, if the appeal cannot be taken up for hearing in recent future. Considering the oneness of the crime, there shall be a direction to the Appellate Court to expedite the appeal process and dispose the appeal, within three months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022
8.With the above said direction, this revision stands dismissed.
21.09.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PNM To
1. The II Class Administrative Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildhar, Revenue Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Odaipatti Police Station, Theni District.(LIR No.20/2021).
3. The Superintendent, Special Prison For Women,Madurai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022 G.ILANGOVAN,J.
PNM ORDER IN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.846 of 2022 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6