You may also like...
-
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.A.(MD)Nos.451, 458, 479, 482, 498 of 2019 and 60 of 2020. (i) These Criminal Appeals are allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court), Tuticorin, in S.C.No.233 of 2012, dated 13.08.2019, is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges. (iii) Since the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.60 of 2020 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. (iv) The bail bond executed by the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.451, 458, 479, 482 & 498 of 2019 shall stand terminated and fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. [J.N.B., J.] [N.A.V., J.] 23.09.2022
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 23, 2022
-
-
Justices R. Subbiah and Krishnan Ramasamy would take up the case, filed by M.L. Ravi of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi. According to the litigant, power consumption charges were collected on a bi-monthly basis in the State. The charges were calculated based on different slabs for those who consume below 100 units, 101 to 200 units, 201 to 500 units, and above 500 units. While the State government provided full subsidy for the first 100 units to all consumers, every unit consumed beyond that was charged at different rates for those falling under different slabs.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 14, 2020