Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
State rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.)
Absconding Accused No. 5 in Cr.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Respondent Police has filed this Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against him in the split up case in S.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
| Sl. No. | Charged Offence | Conviction | Sentence of imprisonment | default sentence |
| 1 | 120(B) | convicted | Five years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- | 15 months simple imprisonment |
| 2 | 120(B) IPC r/w 10(a)(i) and (iv) and 38(1)of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | convicted | Five years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- | 15 months simple imprisonment |
| 3 | 6 of Poisons Act, 1919 | Convicted | Three months of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- | 1 month simple imprisonment |
| 4 | 120(B) of IPC r/w Section(c) of Foreigners Act, | Convicted | Three years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- | One year simple imprisonment |
| 5 | 120(B) of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w 12(1)(a) of Passport Act, 1967 | Convicted | Two years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- | 8 months simple imprisonment |
2.Respondent Q Branch Po
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's conspiracy to revive a banned organization, supported by credible witness testimonies and recovered incriminating materials.
In criminal trials, identification of an accused through aliases introduced long after investigation, without a Test Identification Parade or corroborative evidence, is insufficient to support a conv....
Sufficient evidence existed to justify framing terrorism-related charges against the appellant based on allegations of conspiracy and radicalization supporting a proscribed organization.
The dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty were central legal points established in the judgm....
The court found that the allegations against the appellant did not meet the definition of a 'Terrorist Act' and there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations were prima facie true.
The court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case against the appellant, which posed a threat to national security.
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
Conviction upheld under the N.D.P.S. Act despite claims of procedural irregularities; Section 50 not applicable to non-personal searches.
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
