Madras High Court
K.Gunasekaran vs Inspector Of Police on 18 June, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL.A No. 804 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL A No. 804 of 2017
1. K.Gunasekaran, 54 Yrs,
S/o. Krishnankutty Nayar, 114/c, Race
Course Road,Coimbatore-18. and
another
2.C.T.Thomas, 50 Yrs,
S/o. C.A.Thomas, No.D-4/402, Ashok
Nagar, Military Road, Marol, Antheri
West, Mumbai.
... Appellants
Vs
Inspector Of Police,
Central Bureau Of Investigation
(SPE,CBI,ACB), Chennai.
Cr.No.R.C.No.08(a)/0/2006.
... Respondent
PRAYER
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,Appeal to set aside the
judgment on C.C.No.40 of 2008 dated 07.11.2017 on the file of the XIII
Additional Special Court, CBI Cases, Chennai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:11 pm )
CRL.A No. 804 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.T.Muruganantham
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor
For CBI Cases
JUDGMENT
There are other two appeals in this case. Already the second appellant
has since passed away and the said fact was recorded even in the judgment of
this Court dated 30.08.2022 in Crl.A.Nos.741 and 805 of 2017 and as such this
appeal with reference to the second appellant viz., C.T.Thomas is treated as
having abated.
2. As far as the first appellant is concerned, even in Paragraph 121 of
the judgment in appeal, it can be seen that this appellant and other accused
were tried in two cases viz., C.C.No.39 and 40 of 2008. Though separate
sentences were imposed in both the judgments, it is ordered that the sentence
has to be undergone concurrently in respect of both cases. Even while
disposing of the appeal as against the connected C.C.No.39 of 2008, in
Paragraph No.54 this Court has recorded as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:11 pm )
" 54. In view of the forgoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal filed
by the appellant / A4 is partly allowed, confirming the conviction
modifying the sentence imposed by the trial Court with regard to
Charge No.5, for offence under Section 511 r/w 420 IPC., and Charge
No.6, for the offence under Section 468 r/w 471 IPC. Hence, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment alone. It is
seen that the appellant / A4 had already served incarceration for more
than two years during trial, and pending appeal. The period of
sentence already undergone by A4 is ordered to be set off, as provided
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C."
3. Thus, it can be seen that the first appellant has been under
incarceration for more than two years. Therefore, the maximum sentence that
is imposed in this case being two years has already been undergone by the
first appellant and the fine amount is stated to be paid.
4. In view thereof, the learned counsel would submit that the appellant
would be satisfied if it is recorded that the first appellant has undergone the
sentence and his custody is no more required and the appeal be disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:11 pm )
Accordingly, recording that the second appellant has since passed away, this
appeal stands abated insofar as the second appellant viz., C.T.Thomas and
since the first appellant has undergone the sentence and paid the fine amount,
his custody is not required any more and this appeal stands disposed of.
18-06-2025
KST
Index:No
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation: No
To
1.The XIII Additional Special Court,
CBI Cases, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police
Central Bureau Of Investigation
(SPE, CBI,ACB), Chennai.
Cr.No.R.C.No.08(a)/0/2006.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:11 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
KST
18-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:11 pm )
