Madras High Court
P. Dhandapani vs / on 17 October, 2024
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.R.C.No.760 of 2021
P. Dhandapani ... Petitioner
/vs/
R. Kandasamy ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed in C.A.No.77 of 2016 on
the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruppur at
Dharapuram, confirming the sentence imposed in the judgment dated
08.06.2016 in C.C.No.357 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Udumalpet and to allow the Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner ... Mr.M. Mohan Raju
for Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent .... Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
ORDER
Heard Mr.M.Mohan Raju, holding brief of Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned
counsel for the Revision Petitioner, namely Mr.P.Dhandapani, Mr.B.
Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The present Criminal Revision case under section 397 r/w.401 of
Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgement and order dated 04.09.2021
passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruppur at
Dharapuram in C.A.No.77 of 2016, confirming the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet in
C.C.No.357 of 2011, dated 08.06.2016
3. The learned trial Judge convicted the Revision Petitioner under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one
year Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
Judge, the Revision Petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.77 of 2016 before
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur at Dharapuram,
wherein, the learned First Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner. Aggrieved against the judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision has been
preferred.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
submits that the Revision Petitioner has already undergone the period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial court and first appellate court
and he also deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and thus he submits that
nothing remains to be adjudicated in this Criminal Revision and the same
may be disposed of .
5. The learned counsel for the respondent also made an agreement with
the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
and submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this Revision
pending as the Revision Petitioner has already completed his detention
period, thus, the present Revision may be disposed of.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
records, the Court also finds that nothing remains to be adjudicated in this
Revision, as the Revision Petitioner herein namely Mr.P.Dhandapani has
already completed his period of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial
court and first appellate court. Thus, keeping in view the statements made by
the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the present Criminal Revision
is liable to be disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. With the above observation, the present Criminal Revision is hereby
disposed of.
17.10.2024
msr
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruppur at Dharapuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
msr
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
