D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, M.R.SHAH
Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By Station House Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. Nos. 405 and 429 of 2012 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision applications and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Learned trial Court confirmed by Learned First Appellate Tribunal - Learned Sessions Court convicting the appellants herein - original accused no.1 and accused no.4 for the offence under Section 397 IPC present appeals are preferred.
2. Criminal Appeal No.903 of 2021 has been preferred by the accused Ganesan as original accused - A1 and Criminal Appeal No.904 of 2021 has been preferred by the accused Shanmugam @ Babu - A3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially the charge-sheet was filed against five persons for the offences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Ganesan was shown as A1, one Benny who at the relevant time was absconding was shown as A2, one Prabhakaran was shown as A3, Shanmugam @ Babu was shown as A4 and one Shajahan was shown as A5. However,
Shri Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration
Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi
Raj Kumar Alias Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal
Ram Bilas Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar
Raj Kumar @ Raju (Supra) and Manmeet Singh @ Goldie vs. State of Punjab
Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Sathya Narayanan vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police
Raju Manjhi vs. State of Bihar
K. Prema S. Rao vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli vs. State of Gujarat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.