SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 152

A.PACKIARAJ
Kalaiselvan – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioner:N.Nithiyanandam, Advocate. For The Respondent:V.Arul, Government Advocate.

Judgment :-

This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.2623 of 2002 in C.C.No.209 of 2002, dismissing the petition to discharge the accused/petitioner of offence under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Indian Explosives Act, 1883, on the ground that the points raised by the petitioner herein could not be considered at this stage and it is only the during the course of trial, they could be gone into.

2. For the purpose of disposing of this revision, the short facts of the prosecution case, may be briefly stated as follows:

The complainant, who apparently appears to be the Investigating officer, namely Vijayaragavan, while he was on his duty on 26.12.1999 at about 06.00 a.m,at Mettupatti Check Post, within the jurisdiction of Erumaipatti Police Station, intercepted the Ambasaddor Car bearing Registration Number TCE 6699, plying in the said route, on suspicion. On inspecting the same he found 700 Gilletines in three Polythene bags and 200 Electric Detonators to be illegally transported by A-1 to A-4, without a valid licence or permit. Thereafter, on the confession given by A-1, that the contrabands were purchased from A-5, namely the p






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top