Madras High Court

Mr.Vellaisamy vs State By on 7 November, 2025

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                                          CRL RC No. 1776 of 2023



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 07-11-2025
                                                            CORAM
                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                CRL RC No. 1776 of 2023
                Mr.VELLAISAMY
                                                                                                 ..Petitioner(s)
                                                                 Vs
                State by
                Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Traffic Investigation
                Wing, Guindy, Chennai - 600 090.
                                                                                               ..Respondent(s)


                Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of
                Criminal Procedure to set aside judgment passed in C.A.No.115 of 2022 dated
                11.07.2023 by the XIX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai thereby confirming
                the judgment of Conviction passed in C.C.No.1355 of 2015 by the Learned IV
                Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in the judgment dated 11.05.2022.


                           For Petitioner(s):      Mr.K.Subburam

                           For Respondent(s):      Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                   Government Advocate (Crl.side)


                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment of the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dated 11.05.2022 made in

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

C.C.No.1355 of 2015 and the judgment of the learned XIX Additional Sessions

Judge, Chennai dated 11.07.2023 made in C.A.No.115 of 2022.

2. By the said judgment, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of an

offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one

month imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment

of fine, to undergo one week simple imprisonment; for an offence under Section

338 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one month simple

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo one

week simple imprisonment; and for an offence under Section 304(A) of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.8,000/- and in default, to undergo one month simple

imprisonment.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.07.2014, when

PW11/Rajapandi, Inspector of Police was on duty at J-3, Guindy Police Station,

received a complaint from PW4 to the effect that he is employed in the shop

Poorvika mobiles at Anjugam Nagar 2nd Street, Chennai - 600083 and in front

of the shop, there is a Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) bus stop and

on 31.07.2014, at about 10:00 a.m., a MTC bus bearing registration number TN

01 N 8985 was driven in a negligent manner and hit the two-wheeler which was

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

going in front of the bus and also hit against the passenger who was standing in

the bus stop and thereafter dashed against the tree and stopped.

4. The passenger standing in the bus stop suffered grievous injuries,

while the person who travelled in the two-wheeler succumbed to the injuries.

On the strength of the said allegations, a case was registered under Sections

279, 337 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.596 of 2014 and was

taken up for investigation.

5. After completing investigation, a final report was filed proposing the

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of Indian

Penal Code. Upon the case being taken on file as C.C.No.1355 of 2015 and

issue of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the

charges and stood the trial. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution

examined PW1 to PW11 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked. Upon being

questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the

material evidence on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter,

no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.

6. The trial court, thereafter considered the case of the prosecution and

considering the evidence of PW3, who is the injured witness and an eye witness

to the occurrence and PW4, who is also an eyewitness to the occurrence and the

other corroborating evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution proved

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

the guilt of the accused in respect of the offences beyond any reasonable doubt

and sentenced him as aforementioned.

7. Aggrieved there by, the accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.115 of

2022 before the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The

appellate Court once again reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, as against which the

Criminal Revision is filed.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by relying

upon the rough sketch, the place of the accident, the time of accident and the

manner in which the MTC buses navigate in the road concerned, especially,

during the peak hours, such as 10:00 a.m., in the morning would submit that this

is a case of a sudden happening. It can only be said that the accused didn't do

enough to avoid the accident and it cannot be said that the accused drove the

vehicle in a rash or a speedy manner and caused the accident.

9. When this Court pointed out to the fact that in any event, the

reasonable care that is expected of the driver is not exercised in the instant case

and the fact that a two-wheeler and immediately a passenger was hit and the bus

dashed against the tree also, the learned counsel submitted about the

background of the petitioner and argued about the punishment.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

10. This Court took into account the fact that the tree was also on the

road margin and the bus shelter was immediately next to the tree and the road is

the busy Vadapalani to Guindy road. The time of accident i.e.,10:00 a.m., in the

morning where the entire road is fully crowded is also taken into account. Thus,

I conclude that the accident happened on account of the rashness and negligence

in the sense that not taking reasonable care and concentration in the driving of

the vehicle. But not be on account of any aggravated or egregious conduct of

high speed etc.

11. Under the said background, the fact that the accident happened in the

year 2014 and the accused is facing the proceedings for the past 11 years was

also considered. The injured victim had filed a claim petition and claim was

also awarded. On behalf the deceased, the dependents have filed a claim

petition and the compensation is also awarded.

12. Considering all the above, in view of the pleading that was made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the Investigating

Officer to obtain a report from the Probationary Officer. The Probationary

Officer's report dated 26.08.2024 was also thereafter obtained and placed before

this Court.

13. The report states that the accused has a regular place of abode and

also gives background about his family and also recommends about the good

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

conduct of the accused and that he doesn't have any other bad antecedents and

has given a favourable report for the release of the accused on probation.

14. In view there of, for all the reasons stated above, I am of the view

that in this case after confirming the conviction of the accused in respect of the

offences, instead of proceeding to sentence him, after admonition, the accused

can be released on probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders

Act, 1958. It is also submitted that the accused is not interested in getting the

fine amount refunded, the same is also recorded.

15. In view there of, this Criminal Revision is allowed on the following

terms.

i) The conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 279, 338

and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code vide Judgment in C.C.No.1355 of 2015 dated

11.05.2022 by the trial court and that of the appellate court in C.A.No.115 of

2022 dated 11.07.2023 shall stand confirmed, however instead of proceeding to

sentence the accused, after admonishing, the accused is released on probation

on on the terms that he has to file a undertaking of good conduct for a period of

one year before the trial court within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order and keep up the undertaking given in the bond and upon failure to

keep up, the accused should appear before this Court again to take the sentence.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:40 pm )

ii) It is made clear that the the conviction will not be a disqualification for

any purpose including that of service purposes as per Section 12 of the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

07-11-2025

Neutral Citation: No

mpl To,

1.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Traffic Investigation Wing, Guindy,Chennai - 600 090.

2.The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

3.The XIX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.