Madras High Court
Duraisamy vs State Represented By on 26 April, 2021
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
Duraisamy : Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Budalur Police Station,
in Cr.No.6 of 2012
Thanjavur District. : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. r/w.
Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the lower
Court and set aside the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur in
C.A.No.48 of 2013, dated 31.03.2016 by confirming the judgment in C.C.No.92
of 2012, dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvaiyaru. Thanjavur.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondent :Mr.A.P.G.Oham Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
***
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
ORDER
This Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment of the
Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur in C.A.No.48 of 2013, dated 31.03.2016,
which confirmed the judgment in C.C.No.92 of 2012, dated 31.05.2013 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. Thanjavur.
2.When the matter taken up for hearing today, there is no representation
for the revision petitioner. On perusal of the records, it is found that even on
23.02.2021, 09.03.2021 and 01.04.2021, there was no representation for the
revision petitioner.
3.The learned Government Advocate submitted that it is a case of
conviction and the appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under Section 279 IPC in default simple imprisonment of four weeks
and sentenced to undergo two years simple rigorous imprisionment along with
fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC in default six
months simple imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
4.After the appeal was disposed of by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Thanjavur, the revision case had been filed. The revision is of the year
2017. By now the revision case ought to have been disposed of. The
Constitution of India guaranteed its citizens the right to speedy trial. Here,
having suffered conviction, the accused is indulging in activities, which are
against the principles of speedy trial. When the Constitution guaranteed speedy
trial to its Citizens, this revision petitioner wants to protract the proceedings,
which cannot be encouraged.
5.The revision petitioner, who is the accused before the learned Judicial
Magistrate and had been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and
306(A) IPC, had filed an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed and the
judgment and sentence was confirmed. After filing of this revision, instead of
cooperating with the Court, as per the guaranteed right under Constitution of
India for speedy trial and the revision petitioner is an extension of the same, the
accused, who had suffered conviction, is indulging in dilatrict method and not
cooperate with the Court, which cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
6.Therefore, this Revision Case is dismissed with the direction to the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur to execute the warrant of conviction and
remand the accused/petitioner to undergo sentence as per the order in C.C.No.
92 of 2012.
26.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
cmr
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. Thanjavur.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Budalur Police Station,
in Cr.No.6 of 2012
Thanjavur District.
4.The Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
5.The Record Keeper,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
cmr
Order made in
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.406 of 2017
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
