CRL.RC(MD).No. 87 of 2017

Bail Slip

The Appellants/Accused 1&2 Namely

1. Velmuruganantham @ Anandhan, Male,aged 67, S/o.Thangavel Pillai

2. Nirmala Female aged 62, W/o.Velmuruganantham @ Anandhan were

directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated

25.1/2017 in Crl.MP(MD)737/2017 in Crl.RC(MD)87/2017 on the file of

this Court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 24.02.2021

Pronounced on : 20.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL.RC(MD).No. 87 of 2017

1.Velmuruganantham @ Anandhan

2. Nirmala

:Petitioners / Appellants/Accused No.1&2

Vs.

State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Sivagangai District.

(Crime No. 4 of 2006)

: Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401

Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed

by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Fast Track Court,

Sivagangai, in C.A.No.32 of 2015 dated 10.01.2017 confirming the

Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai in

C.C.No. 97 of 2012, dated 26.05.2015.

For petitioner

: Mr.G. Thiruvarut Selvan

For Respondent

: Mrs. S.E. Veronica Vincent

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the concurrent

Judgments of conviction passed in C.A.No.32 of 2015 dated 10.01.2017

on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai and the

Judgment made in C.C.No.97 of 2012, dated 26.05.2015 on the file of

the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

2. The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in

C.C.No.97 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Sivagangai. The respondent police, on the basis of the

complaint lodged by one Jeyamuniyandi, registered a case in Crime

No. 4 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC.

After completion of the investigation, the respondent police has

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRL.RC(MD).No. 87 of 2017

laid a final report against the three accused under Sections 420 and

506(ii) IPC and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 97 of 2012 on

the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

3. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its

case examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and exhibited 8

documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The accused have adduced neither oral

nor documentary evidence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the

evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has

passed the Judgment on 26.05.2015 acquitting the first accused for

the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and the third accused for the

offence under Section 420 IPC and convicting the accused 1 and 2 for

the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2

years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in

default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by

the said Judgment of conviction, the accused 1 and 2 have preferred

an appeal in C.A.No.32 of 2015 and the learned Sessions Judge of

Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai, upon considering the materials

on record and arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned

Judgment on 10.01.2017 dismissing the appeal and thereby, confirming

the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Criminal appeal, the accused 1 and

2 have come forward with the present revision.

5. Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the learned

Sessions Judge of Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai in C.A.No.32

of 2015 dated 10.01.2017 confirming the Judgment of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai in C.C.No. 97 of 2012, dated

26.05.2015 is liable to be set aside? is the point for

consideration.

6. Before entering into the further discussion, it is time

to remind myse