IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HIGH COURT CITATIONS CRIMINAL CASES (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 5 K. Narayanasamy vs State, by Inspector of Police, CBCID Metro Wing Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) – Discharge petition – Charges and allegations connected with earlier case of electricity theft – Offences to be construed only as connected offence relating to earlier case –Any information received by investigating agency, only remedy available is to seek for relief of further investigation by invoking Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Held: In this case the present allegation of substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report in respect of allegation of tampering of electricity meter is mainly pursuant to the investigation and filing of the final report in the earlier case for the offences under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC, in which the revision petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in the said case. Therefore, it is crystal clear that any further information or material collected by the investigating agency discloses commission of any further offence, the only remedy available to the investigating agency is to seek for the relief of further investigation by invoking the provisions of 173(2) Cr.P.C with the leave of the Court and thereafter to forward the further evidence if any collected and file a further report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, the Investigating agency has failed to do the same and instead resorted to register a separate case and thereafter filed the final report in the instant case. (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 14 R. Lakshmikanthan vs K. Senthilkumar Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Hand writing expert opinion – Cheque bouncing – Signature in cheque disputed – Drawer entitled to examination of cheque by expert – Denial amounts to infringement of right to fair trial. FACTS IN BRIEF: Criminal Original Petition has been filed against the order of the lower appellate court dismissing the application filed by the accused in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to send the cheque for examination by hand writing expert on a defence of forged signature, on the ground that it has been filed for delaying the matter. QUERY: Whether an accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has a right to expert opinion if the signature in cheque is disputed? 32
Held: Whenever an accused disputes his signature in the alleged cheque and takes such defence and if he has come forward with the petition for sending the same for expends opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the learned Magistrate shall send the disputed cheque for comparing the same with the admitted signature of the accused unless he considers that such Applications should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing. The accused is entitled to rebut the case of the Complainant and the denial of such right amounts of denial of fair trial. (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 24 Nachimuthu vs State by the Inspector of Police, Velagoundampatty Police Station Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Office under – Order of conviction - No evidence to prove rash and negligent driving on part of accused – Mere driving of vehicle at high speed not enough to bring offence under Section 304-A IPC – Order of conviction cannot be sustained. Held: The evidence of P.W.9 is sufficient enough to shatter the case of the prosecution as if the but driver is solely responsible for the accident. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the bus was coming straight in the main road and the normal focus of the driver will be only on the main road. Whereas the TVS 50 moped riders coming from branch road ought to have, before entering the main order at the junction, verified the traffic on the main road and only after confirming the same can enter and cross the main road. None of the P.Ws deposed that one such attempt was made by the TVS 50 moped rider before entering the main road. On the contrary, P.W.11 has stated that the bus driver attempted to divert the bus to opposite direction to avoid accident. If that is so, the accused cannot be said to be acted without due care and caution, so as to construe his act, as rashness opposed to deliberate act. It is to be observed that all the witnesses did only speak about the driving of the vehicle at high speed which alone would not render the driving to be rash and negligent as observed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in B.C. Ramachandra S/o Chikkashetty v. State of Karnataka by Channarayapatna Town Police, rep. by S.P.P. of High Court of Karnataka (supra) and Mahadeohariokrs v. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Supreme Court is, under similar circumstances where serious attempts were made on the part of the driver of the vehicle to divert the direction to avoid accident, pleased to hold that the circumstances did not bespeak, negligence or dereliction of duty to exercise due care and control on the part of the accused. The Supreme Court has also observed that when an explanation is sought to be given by the accused about the circumstances under which the accident is caused due to negligent act of the deceased, then the burden shifts to the prosecution to show that the explanation so offered by the accused could not be believed and when no such reason is made out, the case of the prosecution ought to be rejected as no proof is made out and the conviction recorded against the accused is hence not sustainable. The Apex Court has, in the cases above referred to, not appreciated the approach adopted by Courts below, resulting in manifestly illegal order leading to failure of justice. The Courts below by simply accepting the prosecution case, without analyzing as to what amounts to rash and negligent act committed serious error in finding the accused is guilty and convicted him and such order of conviction cannot be allowed to sustain. 33
Page 1 and 2: Vol -VI May, 2011 Part-V IMPORTANT
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CASES WITH CITATION SUPREM
Page 5 and 6: HIGH COURT CITATION OF CIVIL CASES
Page 7 and 8: SUPREME COURT CITATIONS CIVIL CASES
Page 9 and 10: filed an application under Order 21
Page 11 and 12: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 9
Page 13 and 14: SUPREME COURT CITATIONS CRIMINAL CA
Page 15 and 16: Director of Company was accepted an
Page 17 and 18: 2011 (4) SCALE 614 Rallis India Ltd
Page 19 and 20: (2011) 3 MLJ 21 M.V. Jayavelu vs E.
Page 21 and 22: Petition is liable to be set aside
Page 23 and 24: 2011 -2 - TLNJ 142 (Civil) A. Govin
Page 25 and 26: (2011) 3 MLJ 251 K.P. Rajendran and
Page 27 and 28: Petitioner filed an application und
Page 29 and 30: 2011 -2- L.W. 432 Sebasthian and Or
Page 31 and 32: Suit was originally filed by Compan
Page 33 and 34: Held: The Full Bench of the Appex C
Page 35 and 36: Facts: Plaintiff filed a Suit for d
Page 37: enables contemner to produce materi

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?