Madras High Court
S.Gnanavel vs State Rep By Its on 22 September, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.460 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.460 of 2018
S.Gnanavel ... Appellant/Accused
Versus
State Rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
W-9, All Women Police Station,
Villivakkam,
Chennai – 600 049.
(Crime No.3/2015). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to
set aside the judgment of conviction, convicting the appellant for the offence
under Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 and Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000 and
sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment
for offence under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, sentenced to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and
imposed with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple
imprisonment for offence under Section 12 of The Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 5 years simple
imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 67B of
Information Technology Act, 2000.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
Crl.A.No.460 of 2018
Appellant : Mr.S.Mayilnathan
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The appellant/Accused in S.C.No.100 of 2016 was convicted by the
trial Court by the judgment dated 03.07.2018 for the offences under Sections
6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter 'POCSO Act') and Section 67B of Information Technology Act,
2000 and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment
for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, sentenced to undergo 3 years
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo
6 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act
and sentenced to undergo 5 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for offence
under Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000. The sentences were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted for the charge under
Section 506(i) of I.P.C.
2.Aggrieved against the said conviction, the appellant preferred an
appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.460 of 2018 through his counsels,
Mr.M.Murugesan, Mr.V.Srikanth, Mr.P.Suriyanarayanan, Mr.A.Kalidas,
Mr.P.Palanisamy and Ms.P.Sudha. When the appeal was listed for final
hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. After giving sufficient
opportunity, this Court on 24.04.2024 appointed Mr.S.Mayilnathan, Enroll
No.541/2009 as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. The Legal Aid Counsel
was taking steps to contact the appellant for instructions. At that time, on
09.09.2025, the appellant S.Gnanavel had sent a letter to the Legal Aid
Counsel that on 29.10.2024, he was released under remission rules. This
Court enquired the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, how a person
convicted under POCSO Act will benefit under remission rules and entitled
for premature release.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
3.Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a report
submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, which is extracted
hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that after
issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.61, Home (Prison-V) Department, dated
04.02.2025, the Government had issued an amendment to the Tamil Nadu
Prison Rules, 2024, specifying that prisoners convicted for sexual offences or
under the POCSO Act shall not be considered for premature release. As
regards the petitioner, he was released under remission rules prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
issuance of Government Order. G.O.(Ms).No.61 dated 04.02.2025 is
extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
5. In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the above
appeal and the same is dismissed as infructuous.
22.09.2025
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, All Women Police Station,
Villivakkam,
Chennai – 600 049.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
22.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:35:09 pm )
