Madras High Court
Elango vs State Rep. By Its on 31 October, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL RC No. 1574 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL RC No. 1574 of 2024
Elango
S/o.Jayapal, Veerapandikattabomman
Nagar, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Rep. By Its,
The Inspector Of Police, Mettur Police
Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section
401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order of conviction dated 20.06.2024 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mettur in C.A.No.102
of 2022 confirming the judgment passed dated 19.10.2022 by the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District, in C.C.No.210 of 2019.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Senthilkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
CRL RC No. 1574 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgement of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur dated 19.10.2022 made in C.C.No.210 of 2019
and the Additional District Judge (Fast track Court), Mettur dated 20.06.2024 in
Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2022. The Trial court convicted the
petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 229 (A) of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed and the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court was confirmed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein was also
accused no.5 in SC No.46 of 2015, which was registered for the offences under
Section 294(b) r/w 324, 307 & 302 IPC. While the accused was enlarged on
bail, he didn't comply with the condition that was imposed on him in
Crl.MP.No.9085 of 2009 and was also absconding from 30.08.2009. As such,
the instant case was registered under Section 229 (A) of the Indian Penal Code
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
in Crime No.165 of 2019. Thereafter, PW4 took up the matter for investigation
and laid a final report proposing the accused guilty of the offences. The case
was taken on file as CC.No.210 of 2019.
3.Upon issuance of summons and furnishing the copies and questioning,
the accused appeared before the trial Court and denied the allegations in order
to bring home the charge. The prosecution examined in PW1 to PW4 and
marked Exts.P1 and P2. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on
record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused
denied the same. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf the defence. The
trial court considered the case of the parties amd found that when bail has been
granted with condition, by directing the petitioner to regularly appear before the
trial court, after execution of the bond for sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties,
without any valid reason whatsoever, from 30.08.2009, he absconded. The said
facts were proved by the prosecution through oral and documentary evidence.
Accordingly, it convicted the accused and imposed the sentence as
aforementioned. Upon appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
reappraised the entire evidence and confirmed the findings and the sentence of
the trial court. Aggrieved by which, the present Revision is filed.
4.Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would submit that in this case, the prosecution has not proved beyond
doubt that without any valid reason the accused did not comply with the
condition. The accused has reasons for his non-appearance. He would further
submit that the said case in SC No.46 of 2015 ultimately ended up in acquittal.
The learned counsel alternatively would also argue with reference to the
question of sentence. It is brought to the notice of the court that the accused was
imprisoned in connection to the present case for a period of 50 days.
5.Per Contra, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, the learned Government
Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that all the accused were acquitted in the
connected SC No.46 of 2015 only on the benefit of doubt. It must be seen that
the accused persons abscond in these serious cases and only on account of their
act of absconding, one after the other, and the trial being delayed ultimately,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
becomes the reason for the prosecution in not adducing cogent evidence and the
same should be taken into account by this Court. With reference to the quantum
of sentence, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would leave it to the
Court.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
7.As far as the ingredients of the offence are concerned, a perusal of the
oral evidence let in by the prosecution through PW1 to PW4 and by marking the
complaint against the accused, the fact as to the imposition of the condition and
thereafter the accused violating the same has been proved beyond doubt. The
accused cannot deny the fact that he was absconding with effect from
30.08.2009. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there were reasons, either through the cross examination or by leting in
independent evidence, the accused has not let in any evidence to prove that. He
had no valid or reasonable explanation for his non-appearance and violation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
condition and therefore, the offence stood proved and when the trial court as
well as the lower appellate court has rendered the finding after due appreciation
of evidence, this court in exercise of power of revision, is unable to come to a
different conclusion.
8.However, with reference to the quantum of sentence, I am taking into
account two factors. Firstly, the Sessions Case in the SC No.46 of 2015
ultimately ended in acquittal. Secondly, the accused has been facing this case
from the year 2019. Inview thereof, I am of the view that the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the trial court for a period of one year can be
modified to that of 50 days of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.
9.In view thereof, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed on the
following terms;
(1) the finding of guilt and conviction of the accused for the offence
under section 229 (A) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
Magistrate-1, Mettur by judgement dated 19.10.2022 made in CC.No.210 of
2019 and confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)
Mettur by judgement dated 20.06.2024 in C.A.No.102 of 2022 stands
confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment alone is modified to one
already undergone.
31-10-2025
Tsg
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
To
1.The Inspector Of Police, Mettur
Police Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem
District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Mettur, Salem District.
3.The Additional District Judge (Fast
Track Court), Mettur.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
D.BHARATHA
CHAKRAVARTHY J.
Tsg
CRL RC No. 1574 of
31-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:17:35 pm )
