Madras High Court
P. Mahalingam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 July, 2021
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P Nos.1460 and 1461 of 2018
1. P. Mahalingam
Proprietor,
Lings Chemicals
S/o K. Periasamy,
No.335, Anna Nagar,
Madurai – 625 020
2. A. Palanimalai
Proprietor
Palanimalai Agro Traders,
1-4-16-A, Sangagiri Road,
Konganapuram – 637 102.
Namakkal District. ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Agricultural Officer cum
Fertilizer Inspector,Tmt. S. Sujatha,
On behalf of Agricultural Assistant Director,
Konganapuram Division, Salem District,
Konganapuram – 637 102.
Salem District. ...Respondent/Complainant
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings
in C.C.No.240 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem
and to quash the same
For Petitioners : Mr. ElizabethRavi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath – For R1
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated
by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 28, 406 and 420
of IPC @ 120 (b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners are all
factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court
cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its
own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to
interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to
dispense with the presence of the petitioners. Taking into consideration,
the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioners is
dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross
examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The
petitioners shall be present before the Court below for receiving copies
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, for framing of charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in CC No.166 of
2017 as expeditiously as possible. The trial shall be conducted on a day to
day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl)
288 SC]. If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial
Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioners and remand him to
custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC
3191). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
05.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
smn
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem .
2. The Agricultural Officer
Konganapuram Division, Salem District,
Konganapuram – 637 102.
Salem District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
M.DHANDAPANI.J,
smn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
CRL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P Nos.1460 and 1461 of 2018
05.07.2021
Crl.O.P.No.3378 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
The matter is listed today under the caption “For Being Mentioned”
at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the
order copy dated 05.07.2021 in para No.1 offence was mention as
Sections 28,406 and 420 of I.P.C @ 120(b),419,465,467,468,471 and 420
of I.P.C whereas the correct one is Section 7(1)(1)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act and in para no.4 CC.No was mentioned as 166 of 2017
whereas the correct one is C.C.No. is 240 of 2016. . Therefore he made a
request to make necessary corrections in the said order and for reissue of
a fresh order copy.
3. Satisfied with the above submissions, Judicial Magistrate-II
appearing in Para No.1 and Para No.4 reads as follows:
This petition has been filed challenging the
proceedings initiated by the respondent against the
petitioners under Section 7(1)(1)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition
is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to
complete the proceedings in C.C.No. 240 of 2016 as
expeditiously as possible. The trial shall be conducted
on a day to day basis in accordance with the
guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ
(Crl) 288 SC]. If the petitioner adopts any dilatory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the
presence of the petitioners and remand him to
custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS.
SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC 3191).
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also closed. 4. All other conditions imposed on the
petitioner shall remain intact except for the above said
correction.
5. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the
order dated 05.07.2021 and issue a fresh copy of the order to the learned
counsel for the parties.
22.09.2021
smn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CrL.O.P No.3378 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
smn
Crl.O.P.No.3378 of 2018
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
