Madras High Court
Mohandas vs State By on 18 September, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.251 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.251 of 2018
Mohandas ... Appellant/Accused
Versus
State by
The Inspector of Police,
W-9, AWPS, Villivakkam,
Chennai.
(Crime No.1/2015). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to
set aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Chennai (Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai) dated 16.02.2018 convicted him
under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act and he is sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and
also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further period of
two months simple imprisonment for the charge under Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to set aside the
conviction against him.
Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
Crl.A.No.251 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused seeking
to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Chennai in Sessions Case No.137 of 2015 dated 16.02.2018.
2. This Court, on 29.08.2025, had passed the following order:
“The appellant/accused in S.C.No.137 of 2015 was convicted
by the trial Court by the judgment dated 16.02.2018 for the offences
under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Officences Act (hereinafter 'POCSO Act'), 2012 and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced
to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further period of 2 months simple
imprisonment for the offece under Section 12 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further period of 2 months
simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. On his conviction, the
petitioner had preferred the above appeal along with suspension of
sentence petition in Crl.M.P.No.5843 of 2018. This Court, by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
order dated 17.04.2018 had suspended the sentence and granted bail
to the petitioner. Thereafter, when the appeal was listed for final
hearing on 05.08.2024, brother N.Seshasayee, J. (Retired) had
recorded that the counsel Mr.N.Sudharsan, who had filed an appeal,
not received any instructions from his client and the counsel had
given a letter dated 24.07.2024 to the Registry to that effect. Hence,
this Court on 05.08.2024, dropped the name of Mr.N.Sudharsan,
counsel on record for the appellant from the cause list.
2.Today, when the case was called, there is no representation
for the appellant either in person or through his counsel.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reports no
instructions as to whether the appellant has been regularly
appearing before the trial Court on the first working day of every
month at 10.30 a.m.
4.In view of the above, the respondent police is directed to
serve notice to the appellant informing about the pendency of the
appeal before this Court. Keeping the appeal without any progress
due to non co-operation of the appellant will add up to the pendency
of cases. Hence, the respondent is directed to ensure the presence of
the appellant before this Court on the next hearing date.
5.Post on 18.09.2025.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
3. In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this
Court on 29.08.2025, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the appellant was released after serving his sentence. He has also produced a
report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, which is
extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
4. Since the appellant had already served the sentence and released on
02.06.2018, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.
5.Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
18.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
rsi
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-9, AWPS, Villivakkam,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:08 pm )
