Back
S.NAGAMUTHU
Jeevan Emu Care Indian (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes scrutiny of evidence before summoning and caution before issuing non-bailable warrants. (!) (!) (!) - It criticizes trial courts for issuing non-bailable warrants without issuing summons when appropriate, citing Article 21 and 19 rights and constitutional safeguards. (!) (!) (!) - It sets forth guidelines and standards from Supreme Court decisions on when and how warrants (bailable or non-bailable) should be issued, including procedural requirements and record-keeping. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It references the need to balance personal liberty with societal interest and to avoid misuse of warrants, with particular emphasis on follow-up and return of warrants. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment notes that summons should be preferred initially, with non-bailable warrants as a last resort when accused avoid proceedings. (!) - It records the dismissal of the petition as not pressed, with liberty to pursue remedy, and provides remarks directed at trial courts’ adherence to guidelines. (!) (!)
1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997 Cases, Madurai. The respondent has laid a final report alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 120(B) IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997. Seeking to quash the order of the Special Court taking cognizance of the said offences on the above police report, the petitioners have come up with this petition.
2. I have heard Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Senior counsel for Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.
3. The learned Senior counsel advanced his arguments in this matter at length. At the end, the learned Senior counsel, however, submitted that he does not press for any adjudication in this matter and thi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
