My sekarreporter whatsapp last week round up news judges order advts news
[9/23, 19:12] Sekarreporter1: 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 https://sekarreporter.com/the-honourable-mrs-justice-j-nisha-banu-and-the-honourable-mr-justice-n-anand-venkatesh-crl-a-mdnos-451-458-479-482-498-of-2019-and-60-of-2020-i-these-cri/
[9/24, 06:48] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 06:41] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/24/judge-vaithiyanathan-judge-jegathes-chandra-128-%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%b3%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%9a%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8b/
[9/24, 06:41] Sekarreporter1: Judge vaithiyanathan judge jegathes chandra –128 நாட்கள் சட்டவிரோத காவலில் அடைக்கப்பட்ட மகாலட்சுமி மற்றும் சத்யா ஆகியோருக்கு தலா 5 லட்ச ரூபாயை இழப்பீடாக 6 வாரங்களில் வழங்க வேண்டும் என்று தமிழக அரசுக்கு உத்தரவிட்டு, வழக்குகளை முடித்து வைத்தனர். https://sekarreporter.com/judge-vaithiyanathan-judge-jegathes-chandra-128-%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%b3%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%9a%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8b%e0%ae%a4/
[9/24, 07:00] Sekarreporter1: The above directions would clearly indicate that under Sub Rules 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, the Magistrate of the Courts shall not return the final report on the ground that the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) & (xxix) are not enclosed along with the final report. Hence, the above direction shall be scrupulously followed by all the Criminal Courts and the Criminal Courts shall also ensure that the final reports are filed on-line. The Registry is directed to circulate the Order to all the Courts after obtaining order from My Lord, the Honourable the Chief Justice. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 29.08.2022 dhk Note: The Registry is directed to circulate the Order to all the Courts To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Krishnagiri 2.The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri District 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. SATHISH KUMAR, J. dhk Crl.O.P. No.15881 of 2022 29.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisPage 6 of 6 https://sekarreporter.com/the-above-directions-would-clearly-indicate-that-under-sub-rules-7-of-rule-25-of-the-criminal-rules-of-practice-2019-the-magistrate-of-the-courts-shall-not-return-the-final-report-on-the-ground-that/
[9/24, 07:31] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/FR_7aS5fl5E
[9/24, 08:11] Sekarreporter1: [8/18, 08:07] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/08/18/8-18-0806-chandrasekar-mhc-advt-chandru-law-academyinviting-you-to-offline-online-coaching-forjudicial-examination-magistrate-munsifsubject-the-indian-constitution-1950-continuationdate/
[9/24, 07:46] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 07:45] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY*
Inviting you to *OFFLINE / ONLINE coaching* for
*JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE/ MUNSIF*
*Subject: THE CIVIL PROCEDUR E CODE, 1908*
*Date : 24 SEPTEMBER 2022*
*Timing*: 10:45 am to 1:30 pm
*CONTACT NO : 7339650446*
[9/24, 07:46] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/24, 08:44] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Tj4LdqClv_4
[9/24, 09:33] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/yUBgproe3RE
[9/24, 09:48] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 09:45] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 08:45] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Tj4LdqClv_4
[9/24, 09:44] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 09:41] Wla: Wishing your Lorship Justice Indira Bannerjee for successfully completingyour retirement from The Apex Supreme court of india May the Almighty will be taking care ofyour future life During your period of Chief Justice in the Chartered Mds H C your dedication to judiciary will be remembered in that period of As achief justice of Mdrs H.C i have argued formy personel case as a party in person and obtained order in my favour which icannot forget in my life very very fair dedication of your service Chennai will never forget recent rumour Judges period of retirement hasto be extended i was very happy if it so The Apex court willbe extended with Lady Judge but unfortunately.it could succeed I and onbehalf of all the wlA adv ts iamwishing youto success in allthr’o your walks of life Almighty willbe tkg care of you Good Bye to our beloved Lorship
[9/24, 09:44] Sekarreporter1: 🌹🌹
[9/24, 09:46] Wla: The above message is from Adv Rajakumari Kotteeswaranand Adv R Subadradevi Mds H.C chennai
[9/24, 15:54] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 15:53] Sekarreporter1: சவுக்கு சங்கர் அரசு பணியில் இருந்து நீக்கம்.
நீதிமன்ற அவதூறு வழக்கில்
சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்ட நிலையில், அவரை டிஸ்மிஸ் செய்து காவல்துறை நடவடிக்கை
[9/24, 15:53] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/24, 20:56] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 20:49] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 20:33] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 20:33] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1573689104797433856?t=wFyTAgpg4y_oKkA7BjBQ7w&s=08
[9/24, 20:33] Sekarreporter1: Today click senior adv masilamani function our acj and our judges congrats all
[9/24, 20:43] Mukesh Puthiyathaimurai Jounalist: Super Sekar Sir, Thanks for Sharing The Wonderful Moments….. 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
Congrats for Mrs. and Mr. Masilamani sir💐💐💐🤝….
And We need their blessings🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
[9/24, 20:55] Mukesh Puthiyathaimurai Jounalist: When he is the ASG of GoI, I spoke to him for news…
There after i have no business with him Sir….
ஆனால் அவரை எனக்கும், என்னை அவருக்கு தெரியாவிட்டாலும், இந்த வயதில் ஒரு மூத்த தம்பதியின் திருமண நிகழ்வை பார்க்கும் போது, வாழ்த்தவும், ஆசி பெறவும் தோணுது… அதில் தப்பில்லையே
[9/24, 21:37] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 21:36] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1573701990483632128?t=wczfY90PBnhSBoi4jbCZEw&s=08
[9/24, 21:37] Sekarreporter1: [9/24, 21:17] Wla: Hearty congradulations for Mrs and Mr.Masil
amani Snr counsel.for their happy and Joyful occasion May the Almighty showers His blessings upon them really every one of us need their blessings annan was ex solicitor General who is very humble by nature i used call sir as Annan when ever i go for drinking water after the entry of biometric system he used to come and help tto enter such a Great personto be ever blessed
[9/24, 21:19] Wla: This is a Message from adv Rajakumari kotteeswaran andadv R.Subadra devi Mds High court
[9/25, 06:33] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/zRoYTHXMOY0
[9/25, 10:35] Sekarreporter1: [9/25, 10:34] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/9j4dO0YVCu4
[9/25, 10:34] Sekarreporter1: Excellent speech of R sures Kumar judge
[9/25, 10:34] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/25, 16:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/25, 16:09] Sekarreporter1: SVNJ attended the function. On 20/9/2022
[9/25, 16:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/VDJRROvUFHc
[9/26, 06:35] Sekarreporter1: [9/26, 06:34] Sekarreporter1: மத்திய அரசின் தலைமை வழக்கறிஞர் பொறுப்பை ஏற்க மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் முகுல் ரோஹத்கி மறுப்பு
[9/26, 06:35] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/26, 08:19] Sekarreporter1: ஐகோர்ட் பதிவாளருக்கு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் ‘நோட்டீஸ்’
https://dinamalarandroidapp.page.link/ez1v1a9S8baHXyYV6
Dinamalar
[9/26, 12:27] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/FbcX5pL5Pwk
[9/26, 13:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Hjc4xnWuoKE
[9/26, 13:20] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/GqxH6_mgVgc
[9/26, 13:32] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/WYNCZ2xcLdE
[9/26, 16:40] Sekarreporter1: [9/26, 16:27] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: https://youtu.be/FbcX5pL5Pwk
[9/26, 16:37] Sekarreporter1: It is always inspiring to hear about the Litigations pleaded by Respected Advocate K Balu sir, all the Litigations are of social interest and PRO BONO PUBLICO 💐. In this case, pleading for proper Road facilities and for waiving of excessive toll charges is appreciable. I always wish to extend my sincere support to Advocate T Balu sir.
With Gratitude,
R. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, MHC
CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY
[9/26, 20:28] Sekarreporter1: [9/26, 20:00] Mohanakrishnan President Mhaa: MHAA
invites you for a lecture
by Learned Advocate
*Mr. T S Sasi Kumar* on
*The Nuances of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act*
On 28.09.2022 (Wednesday)
At 1.15 pm
At the MHAA Hall.
All Advocates are requested to attend.
G. Mohanakrishnan President , MHAA
[9/26, 20:26] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/27, 06:47] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 06:45] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574568267607592960?s=08
[9/27, 06:45] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 19.09.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.53 of 2002
M.Mahadevan alias Mahadevaiah .. Appellant
Versus
1. M.Choode Gowdu (Deceased)
2. M.Chandrasekaran
3. Gowramma
4. Sujatha alias Choodamma
5. Subramani
6. Rudrappa
7. Y.Venugopal
8. Putta Madhamma
9. Desikendra Kumar
10. M.Baskar Raj
11. Pushpa
12. Yasodamma
13. Navin
(Respondents 9 to 13 brought on record as LRs of deceased R1 vide order of Court, dated 28.09.2012
made in C.M.P.Nos.362 to 364 of 2011 in
A.S.No.53 of 2002) .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 13.08.2001 in O.S.No.258 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur and to allow this Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sekar
for Mr.D.Shivakumaran
For Respondents : R1- Died
: Mr.Abrar Mohammed Abdullah for RR-2, 4 and 8
: Mr.C.Prabakaran, for Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, for RR-5 and 6
: Mr.J.Hariharan, for Mr.V.Nicholos, for R7
JUDGMENT
A. The Appeal Suit :
This Appeal Suit is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the
judgment and decree by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, dated 13.08.2001 in O.S.No.258 of 1996, in and by which, the suit filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Suit itself.
B. The Suit :
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit
properties into three equal shares and allotted one such share to the plaintiff and for separate possession, mean profits and for permanent injunction restraining the seventh defendant or his men from interfering with the possession and for costs.
C. The Pleadings :
3. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are brothers and they are
the sons born to one Made Gowdu and Siddamma. Yet another daughter, by name Putta Rajamma died ten years prior to the filing of the suit and the fifth defendant is her son and the sixth defendant is her husband. The seventh defendant in the suit, namely Y.Venugopal was the purchaser of the part of the suit property from the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma. The eighth defendant in the suit, Putta Madhamma, is the wife of the second defendant in the suit, in whose favour, part of the suit property was bequeathed by the
plaintiff’s mother Siddamma.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were
purchased by the plaintiff’s father Made Gowdu, by a registered sale deed, dated 16.03.1948. While so, in the year 1959, when third parties attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, a suit was filed in O.S.No.426 of 1959, in which, the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff, the first and the second defendants were parties. By a decree, dated 29.09.1962, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise, as per which, the present suit properties, which were item Nos.8 and 9 in the said suit, were declared to be that of the plaintiff and the first defendant.
Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father and mother had again filed a second suit in O.S.No.109 of 1965 claiming maintenance and since the above said
properties were given to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 and life estate was directed to be there for the plaintiff’s parents, they claimed the monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.30/- per month or in the alternative, to declare their right to be in possession of the present suit properties till their life time. The plaintiff’s father died during the pendency of the said suit in June, 1966 and thereafter, the said suit was not prosecuted and the plaintiff’s
mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff’s mother Siddamma died on 01.08.1994. Before her death, without any right whatsoever, she sold the item No.1 of the suit property to the seventh defendant by a registered sale deed, dated 25.06.1990. The said sale is sham and nominal as she did not have any right whatsoever. Similarly, the plaintiff’s mother had executed a registered Will, dated 27.06.1994 in respect of the item No.2 of the suit property in favour of eighth defendant, namely the wife of the second defendant and she had no such right to execute the said will. As a matter of fact, even on 13.08.1990, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants. Since the seventh defendant is attempting to interfere with the properties which continued to be in the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, the
plaintiff filed the present suit.
5. The first defendant remained exparte in the suit. The second
defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. As per the second defendant the relationship between the parties is admitted. It is contended that the properties are the self-acquired properties of Made Gowdu and Siddamma and are not joint family properties. After the
maintenance suit was filed in O.S.No.109 of 1965, the father of the first and
the second defendants died and there was a family arrangement on 28.05.1967, in and by which, the properties were allotted to the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma. The said Siddamma was in possession pursuant to the oral partition. The Ryotwari Patta was also issued in favour of the said Siddamma by order of the Board of Revenue, Madras, dated 21.01.1974. By virtue of the same, the said Siddamma became absolutely entitled to the suit properties. Therefore, the said Siddamma sold item No.1 of the suit property by a registered sale deed, dated 23.06.1990. She had also bequeathed the item No.2 of the suit property in favour of the eighth defendant by a valid, genuine and registered Will, dated 27.06.1994. The second defendant and his wife, namely the eighth defendant were only attending to the said Siddamma and therefore, she had bequeathed the property in favour of the eighth defendant. Therefore, according to the
second defendant, the suit is without any merits and has to be dismissed.
6. The defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 remained exparte. The seventh
defendant also contested the suit by filing a written statement. As per the case of the seventh defendant, Siddamma was the absolute owner of the item No.1 of the property. There cannot be any limited estate in respect of the properties of Siddamma. The total sale price was fixed at Rs.1,68,000/-
which was duly paid and the sale deed was executed on 25.06.1990. Thereafter, the seventh defendant had made improvements on the land by levelling and removing the boulders etc. The seventh defendant is, thereafter, in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, being out of possession, the plaintiff should have valued the property and bound to pay proper Court fee under Section 37 of the Court fees Act, 1870. The plaintiff had knowledge about the sale as he had issued legal notice on
13.08.1990 itself and therefore, belatedly in the year 1996, vexatious suit is filed and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The eighth defendant also filed a written statement duly adopting the written statement filed by the second defendant.
D. The Issues :
7. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
share in the suit properties, if so, to what extent?
(ii) Whether the compromise decree in O.S.No.426 of 1959 will be binding on the second defendant?
(iii) Whether the suit properties belong to Siddamma on account of the family arrangement?
(iv) Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the seventh defendant is sham and nominal?
(v) Whether on account of the Inam Act, the item No.2 of the suit property will belong to Putta Madhamma, the eighth defendant?
(vi) To what reliefs, the plaintiff is
entitled to?
Additional issue:-
Whether the Will, dated 24.06.1994 is genuine? Whether as per the said Will, the item No.2 of the suit schedule property belongs to the eighth defendant?
E. The Evidence :
8. On the said issues, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-24 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1. The eighth defendant was examined as D.W.2 and one Nanjundappa was examined as D.W.3. On behalf of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on either side and by a judgment, dated 13.08.2001, found that the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the Ryotwari Patta being granted in her name under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and in view of the Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even the limited estate of women got enlarged and became absolute estate and therefore, the plaintiff’s mother became the absolute owner of the property. The Trial Court held that the earlier compromise decree in O.S.No.426 of 1959 would not bind the parties. Inter alia, for the above findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by which, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
F. The Submissions :
9. Heard Mr.V.Sekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant; Mr.Abrar Mohammed Abdullah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2, 4 and 8; Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6; Mr.J.Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the seventh respondent.
10. Mr.V.Sekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, taking this Court through the pleadings and the exhibits marked, would submit that by Ex.A-2 compromise decree in respect of both the items of the suit properties, the plaintiff and his two brothers, namely the defendants 1 & 2, were the owners. The plaintiff’s father had though purchased the suit property by a registered deed in Ex.A-1, had given up his right in favour of his three sons i.e., the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2. Therefore, the said compromise decree would be valid and binding between the parties. He would submit that even in Ex.A-3, the second suit filed by the parents of the plaintiff, they had categorically admitted about the earlier compromise and that they are acting upon the earlier compromise and only prayed for the limited estate, in view of the maintenance amount not being paid to them. In view thereof, it is clear that the properties are that of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2. Each one of them is entitled to 1/3rd share. The plaintiff’s mother Siddamma was neither the purchaser of the property in the sale deed, dated 16.03.1948 (Ex.A-1) nor was granted any right by the Civil Court in Ex.A-2 compromise decree. While so, just because for the sake of convenience of the members of the family, Ex.A-4 Ryotwari Patta was taken in the name of the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma,
she cannot claim title to the suit properties.
11. The learned Counsel would further submit that once the
plaintiff’s mother had no right or title or interest in respect of the suit properties, except the limited right of enjoyment, the sale deed executed by her and the Will executed by her are void ab initio and the plaintiff need not even specifically challenge the sale deed. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court erred in not decreeing the suit. He would submit that the findings of the Trial Court that the limited estate stood enlarged by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is erroneous, especially, Section 14(2) of the Act, would make it very clear that enlargement of the estate will not be applicable in the present case, as the limited estate was granted under a decree of the Court. Therefore, the said reasoning of the
Trial Court cannot stand.
12. As far as the next finding about the title of the plaintiff’s
mother based on the Ryotwari Patta is concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that the order of the Settlement Tahsildar/Board of Revenue will not be superior to that of the compromise decree of the Civil Court. When there is a decree inter-parties, the compromise decree will prevail over the grant of patta. As a matter of fact, the patta is only the recognition of the existing right and therefore, the mere fact that the patta is granted in the name of the plaintiff’s mother will not, in any way, nullify the Ex.A-2 compromise decree and the rights of the parties got crystalised in the said compromise decree and therefore, the finding that the compromise decree is not binding is again illegal and therefore, the learned Counsel would pray
for allowing the appeal.
13. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel firstly
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basanti Devi (Dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Rati Ram & Ors. , more specifically
relying upon the paragraph No.14 for the proposition that in a case like the one on hand, the limited estate will not get enlarged into a full right. It is useful to quote the paragraph No.14 of the said paragraph which reads as
follows:-
” 14. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the property in the hands of Chimmli came in lieu of maintenance or on account of arrears of maintenance. The property in her hands came as a result of she being a successor of Sheo Lal. Sheo Lal did not possess any property. He had only life interest in the property which did not enlarge into a full right because Section 14(1) does not recognise the preexisting right of a Hindu male. Smt Chimmli could not have acquired a better right than her husband had in the property in dispute. Right of Sheo Lal, as also of Smt Chimmli, flows from the decree. Therefore, her right would not mature into full-fledged ownership by virtue of Section 14(1). She has acquired the right by virtue of the compromise decree for the first time. Therefore, Section 14(2) would apply to the instant case.”
14. The learned Counsel would then rely upon the judgment of this Court in N.Thirumuppa Gowder Vs. Ponnusamy and Ors. , more
specifically relying upon the paragraph Nos.94 and 95 for the proposition that if the alienation is made in derogation of the right of the plaintiff, the same will not, in any manner, bind the plaintiff and the plaintiff will still be entitled to the share in the property. The said paragraph Nos.94 and 95 are extracted as hereunder:-
” 94. On coming to the instant case on hand, the Plaintiff is able to establish the fact that till 1993, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property along with his elder brother, viz., the First Defendant and thereafter, taking advantage of the entries made in the revenue records in his name, the First Defendant had in the fourth week of July 1994 dispossessed him from the property and thereafter, unilaterally had alienated the Suit property in favour of the Defendants 2 & 3 under two Sale Deeds, vide Documents Nos. 531 of 1995 & 532 of 1995.
95. In the light of the above said decision, though the First Defendant is not having any right in respect of the Plaintiff’s ½ share in the Suit property, he had sold out the entire property in favour of the Defendants 2 & 3, deliberately, which is not permissible under law as he cannot convert the Joint Family property into his personal property.”
15. The learned Counsel would further rely upon the judgment in Srinivasan and 6 Ors. Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattaviathalai,
Tiruchirapally District by its Executive Officer at Pettavaithalai Devasthanam and 5 Ors. , whereby, the Full Bench decided the question as to whether the Civil Court still have jurisdiction in view of the Act, namely
the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and after considering all the relevant judgments, the Full Bench of this Court in its judgment in paragraph No.18, had answered the
reference holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and injunction is not barred. It is useful to extract the
paragraph No.18 of the said judgment which reads as hereunder:-
” 18. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the negative by holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and injunction is not barred by reason of the grant of patta under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.”
Therefore, in view of the above judgment and for the submissions
made by him, the learned Counsel would pray that the appeal is to be
allowed and the suit be decreed as prayed for.
16. Per contra, Mr.J.Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the seventh respondent, would submit that in this case, the seventh defendant is concerned with the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The title in respect of the suit schedule property is conferred on the mother of the plaintiff only by Ex.A-4, Ryotwari Patta. By virtue thereof, she, being the owner, has alienated the item No.1 of the suit property for valuable consideration and after purchasing the same, the seventh defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff had, even in the year 1990, issued legal notice. However, inspite of knowledge did not institute the suit within a period of three years from the date of sale. The plaintiff also did not specifically pray for setting aside the sale deed. The suit is vexatious and does not have any merits. The earlier compromise decree was subsequently overridden by a family arrangement. By way of oral partition, the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma was allotted the suit properties. Pursuant to the allotment, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the suit is rightly
dismissed by the Trial Court.
17. Mr.Abrar Mohammed Abdullah, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents 2, 4 and 8, would also make submissions on the same lines, adopting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the seventh defendant and submits that apart from the above, the Will is also held to be valid and genuine and the same is proved in accordance with law by the eighth defendant. Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6, would submit that he has instructions to sail along with the appellant and therefore, he supports the appeal and prays that the appeal be allowed as prayed for.
G. The Admitted Facts :
18. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
either side and perused the material records of this case. On a careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the following are the
admitted facts in this case:-
➢ The suit properties form part of the ‘estate’ covered under the
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1948.
➢ The plaintiff’s father purchased the property on 16.03.1948 vide Ex.A-1, sale deed and thereafter, there was interference into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 & 2 and their father. Therefore, a suit was filed in O.S.No.426 of 1959 which ended in a compromise decree, in which, this suit item Nos.1 and 2 are mentioned as item Nos.8 and 9 in the said suit. Apart from the defendants/third parties, the plaintiff’s father also gave up his right in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants 1 & 2.
➢ As per the said terms of compromise, the plaintiff’s father and thereafter mother are to be paid maintenance of Rs.30/- per month or in the alternative, they will have life estate in respect of the suit properties.
➢ A suit was filed in O.S.No.109 of 1965 for maintenance by theplaintiff’s father and mother. Pending the suit in June, 1966, the plaintiff’s father died. The suit properties were therefore left for their
enjoyment. The suit was thereafter allowed to be dismissed for default. However, the suit properties continued to be in the
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s mother.
➢ On 21.01.1974, the settlement officer passed an order under
Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 granting Ryotwari Patta in the name of the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma and vide Ex.A-4, the consequent patta in Ex.A-5 was also granted.
➢ The plaintiff’s mother had, on 25.06.1990, sold item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of the seventh defendant.
➢ The plaintiff’s mother had, thereafter, died on 01.08.1994.
➢ The relationship between the parties that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, being the brothers and relationship in respect of the other defendants are all admitted.
H. The Facts in Issue & Findings:
19. The first disputed fact is as to whether there was an oral
partition in the year 1967 as per Ex.A-14. To answer the same, firstly, the factum as to the partition in the year 1967, though is admitted by the plaintiff, it is said to be in terms of Ex.A-14. The said fact was not mentioned in the plaint. Even though the second defendant pleaded specifically that there was an oral partition, no reply was filed by the plaintiff. For the first time, contrary to the pleadings, Ex.A-14 was sought to be produced. The signature of the second defendant is denied in Ex.A14. The plaintiff did not take any steps to prove the signature. This apart, Ex.A-14 is an unregistered panchayat muchalika which was originally
written in Telugu and the Tamil translation of the same reads as follows:-
“… 1967k; tUlk; nk 28k; njjp xR{h; jy;Yhfh bl’f; zpf;nfhl;il rg;jhYhfht[f;F nru;e;j MRghY jhg[ bey;YkhU fpuhkj;jpypUf;Fk; khnjbfsL Fkhuh;fs; R{nlft[L (1) kcwh njta;ah (2) re;jpunrfua;ah (3) Mfpa eh’;fs; K:tUk; nrh;e;J fPH;fz;l g”;rhaj;J jhuh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; eh’;fs; ghfk;bra;Jf;bfhz;l brhj;jpd; ghfKr;rspfh//// ”
Therefore, it can be seen that it does not record any oral partition
which already happened, but, it records the actual partitioning of the property. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the document in Ex.A-14 is an unstamped and unregistered document and therefore cannot be relied upon or looked into by the Court. This position has been laid down in detail
by a Division Bench of this Court in A.C.Lakshmipathy & Anr. Vs. A.M.Chakarapani Reddiar.
20. On the other hand, at the earliest point of time in the written
statement itself, the second defendant has categorically pleaded that there was an oral partition/family arrangement. On a cumulative reading of the evidence, it would be clear that the property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father in the year 1948 and by virtue of the compromise decree in the year 1962, the property was left to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, but, however, a limited estate was reserved for the plaintiff’s father and mother. Thereafter, the plaintiff/defendants 1 & 2 did not maintain the parents and therefore, the second suit in Ex.A-3 also came to be filed. Therefore, after the death of the father, it is in the natural course of events that an oral partition was made in which the properties were given to the plaintiff’s mother absolutely. The defendants have pleaded and also let in evidence that the property was given to the plaintiff’s mother by virtue of the oral partition. Only as a counterblast to the same, said valid oral partition, Ex.A-14 is tried to be introduced by the plaintiff, but, however, without any
pleading.
21. This apart, the very fact that thereafter, the order of the
settlement officer/Board of Revenue for Ryotwari Patta, was obtained in the name of the plaintiff’s mother in the year 1974 and thereafter, the patta was also issued in Ex.A-5 in the year 1984, which all categorically buttress the case of the defendants. There is yet another very important clinching evidence to hold in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because even in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
categorically admits as follows:-
“…. vf;rpgpl; v4 eltof;ifapy; eh’;fs; vy;yhk; thf;FK:yk;
bfhLj;jpUf;fpnwhk; ….”
Therefore, it can be seen that only because it was given to the
plaintiff’s mother absolutely, the plaintiff also gave a statement in Ex.A-4 proceedings. Therefore, I hold that there was an oral partition/family arrangement in the year 1967, pursuant to which, the plaintiff’s mother
Siddamma was granted the property.
22. The second disputed fact is as to whether the sale was for
proper and valid consideration or whether it is sham and nominal. On a plain reading of the sale deed, coupled with the written statement filed by the seventh defendant and the evidence of D.W.2, it would be clear that the seventh defendant had purchased the same for valuable consideration and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. As a matter of fact, the sale deed is primarily sought to be assailed before this Court only on the ground that the plaintiff’s mother did not have title and therefore, the sale is void ab initio. The said legal submission will be dealt with in the later part of the judgment, otherwise, factually, I hold that the seventh defendant has purchased the property for a valid consideration and therefore, the sale deed
cannot be said to be sham or nominal.
23. The third fact in dispute is as to whether the plaintiff’s mother
had executed a valid Will in favour of the eighth defendant in respect of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The Will has been duly proved by examining D.W.3, the attesting witness. The attending circumstance, namely that the eighth defendant was only taking care of the plaintiff’s mother, is categorically proved. The Will is otherwise a registered Will. Even before this Court, except for questioning the very title of the plaintiff’s mother to execute the Will, no serious dispute on the genuineness of the Will was raised and accordingly, I hold that by the genuine Will, dated 27.06.1994 in Ex.B-3, the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is bequeathed in favour of the eighth defendant.
I. The Points for Consideration :
24. In view of my above findings of facts, the following questions
need to be answered so as to decide this Appeal Suit:-
(i) Whether or not, the plaintiff’s mother, Siddamma, became entitled to the suit schedule properties by virtue of the oral partition and Ex.A-4 Ryotwari Patta granted under the Act or whether the compromise decree in O.S.No.426 of 1959 would prevail?
(ii) Whether the right of the plaintiff’s mother stood enlarged into an absolute estate by virtue of the Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited on account of absence of specific challenge to the sale deed in favour of the seventh defendant and whether the suit is barred by limitation?
J. Question No.1 :
25. Admittedly, the suit property is part of the estate covered
under the Act. Therefore, by virtue of the Section 3(b) of the Act, it stood vested in the Government with effect from 19.04.1949, the date on which the Act came into force notwithstanding the purchase of the plaintiff’s father by Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 16.03.1948. Therefore, when the compromise decree happened vide Ex.A-2 on 29.09.1962, as a matter of fact, the land still stood vested in the Government and the compromise decree can at best be binding inter-parties’ obligations and liabilities, but, cannot and does not confer any title on the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 & 2, unless their existing right is recognised by grant of Ryotwari Patta under the act. As per the scheme of the Act, even though the grant of Ryotwari Patta is only a recognition of the existing right, the very fact that the plaintiff also gave statement in support of the existing right of his mother, which can only by way of the oral partition/family arrangement as pleaded by the second defendant and therefore, the proceedings are in the nature of confirming the
title of the holder, though not conferring the title.
26. In this case, by an order, dated 21.01.1974, the settlement
officer had adjudicated and confirmed the right in favour of the plaintiff’s mother. Even though the learned Counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Basanti Devi (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (cited
supra), there can be no quarrel about the proposition that the Civil Court can still have the power to adjudicate the title of the parties and there is no ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction. But, however, in this case, the compromise decree was not an adjudication between the rights of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 & 2 vis-a-vis the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma. As a matter of fact, she was not even a party to the said suit. Therefore, the ratio in the above Full Bench judgment that the Civil Court will still have the right to adjudicate will not in any manner further the case of the
appellant.
27. In this case, after the compromise decree, there was a family
arrangement and by virtue of the said oral partition, the plaintiff’s mother was given the property. The very fact that the plaintiff also gave a statement before the settlement officer at the time of grant of patta would confirm the said oral arrangement. Ultimately, the Ryotwari Patta under Section 11 of the Act was granted in favour of the plaintiff’s mother alone. The said patta was not challenged by the plaintiff in the manner known to law either under the provisions of the Act or before the Civil Court by filing any suit for declaration of title. Therefore, the events being subsequent to the compromise decree, the question as to the validity of the compromise decree or otherwise does not arise in the instant case. As a matter of fact, under identical circumstances, while considering the validity of the
compromise decree vis-a-vis the rights crystalised under the similar Act, the
Division Bench of this Court, in Dr.Natesan (died) and Ors. Vs. Pandari Narayanan (died) and Ors. , had held that the parties to the compromise cannot have better right than what is granted under the Act and it is useful
to extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment which reads as
hereunder:-
” 23. A Division Bench of this Court, in Sangili v. Ramakrishnan [1974 (I) M.L.J. 87}, held that a compromise decree is not a decision by the court and it is the acceptance by the court of something to which the parties had agreed; and a compromise decree merely sets the seal of the court on the agreement of the parties, and the court does not decide anything nor can it be said that a decision was implicit in it. Only a decision by a court can be a res judicata, whether statutory under Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure or constructive as a matter of public policy, on which the entire doctrine rests. The compromise decree cannot directly be regarded as a decision on a matter which was heard and decided and, therefore, cannot operate as res judicata. Their lordships followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao & Others v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao [1964 (2) S.C.J. 518]. Their lordships held that it is open to the plaintiffs to ignore such decree and pray for necessary relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the basis that the said decree is null and void and inoperative. In Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar [A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 226], the Supreme Court held that a consent decree incorporating the terms of a fresh lease, to be effective as a valid lease, required registration in view of the provisions contained under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act 1908, because the period reserved under the lease was exceeding one year. It was held that if the lease is void for want of registration, neither party to the indenture can take advantage of any of the terms of the lease.
….
25. For all the above reasons, we find that the inam is a service inam and that the alienation made in the form of a permanent lease is illegal and the plaintiffs are entitled to continue in possession of the property by virtue of the patta granted, which has become final. We further find that the plaintiffs are not estopped from questioning the compromise and the said compromise decree is not binding on the
principle of res judicata.”
Therefore, the order in Ex.A-4 and the consequential patta in Ex.A-5 within the scheme of the Act actually confirm the title on the
plaintiff’s mother, which is on the basis of the oral partition. In view of the
plaintiff’s and the defendants 1 & 2 giving up their rights under the compromise decree, cannot thereafter claim right under the Ex.A-2 compromise decree. Accordingly, I answer the question in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
K. Question No. 2:
28. To consider the question No.2, it is useful to extract Section
14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as follows:-
” 14. Property of a female Hindu to be
her absolute property.—
(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award
prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
29. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment in Basanti Devi (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (cited supra) and submitted that in attachment of the properties in lieu of the arrears of maintenance by the Court will not enlarge into an absolute estate. In view of my findings that in this case, even though initially, there was only a limited estate and even though initially it was only on account of maintenance, since, by a latter family arrangement, the property was given absolutely in favour of the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma, the said question of the limited estate, being conferred and the same enlarging into an absolute estate, does not arise in this case and I answered the question accordingly.
L. Question No.3 :
30. As far as this question is concerned, it can be seen that no
specific issue has been framed by the Trial Court as to whether the plaintiff should be non-suited for not making a challenge to the sale deed and no
issue relating to limitation is also framed so as to enable the parties to let in evidence in this regard. In view of my findings supra in respect of question No.1 above, wherein I have found clear and categorical title in respect of the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma, on account of the oral partition as well as the Ryotwari Patta being granted in favour of the plaintiff’s mother, this question itself would be superfluous and therefore need not be answered.
M. Answers to the Issues :
31. In view of my answers to the facts in dispute as well as to the
above questions framed, I answer the issue No.1 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property. I answer the issue No.2 that even though to the limited extent of the inter-parties rights between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, the compromise decree in O.S.No.426 of 1959 will be binding, but at the time of compromise decree, the property itself is vested in the Government and was subsequently granted only in favour of the plaintiff’s mother and therefore, the compromise decree has become redundant in view of the subsequent developments i.e., by an oral partition/family arrangement in the year 1967 and thereafter, the grant of Ryotwari Patta. I answer issue No.3 in the affirmative that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff’s mother Siddamma as per the family arrangement. I answer the issue No.4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the seventh defendant holding that the sale in favour of the seventh defendant is not sham and nominal and is a valid sale. I answer the issue No.5 and the additional issue by holding that the eighth defendant became entitled to the second item of the suit property by virtue of the registered Will which is duly proved in accordance with law being executed by the plaintiff’s mother, Siddamma, with a valid title. For all these above answers, I answer the issue No.6 against the plaintiff that he is not entitled any relief in the present suit and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the
suit.
N. The Result :
32. For all the above reasons, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with
costs throughout to the defendants 2, 7 and 8. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4686 of 2002 is closed.
23.09.2022
Index : yes
Speaking order grs
To
The Subordinate Court, Hosur.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
Pre-Delivery Judgment in
A.S.No.53 of 2002
23.09.2022
[9/27, 06:49] Sekarreporter1: [9/26, 21:25] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/ACrA3mSbKdQ
[9/26, 21:26] Sekarreporter1: mhc press reporters association members met Acting chief justice T Raja congrats sir
[9/27, 08:34] Sekarreporter1: https://youtube.com/shorts/z0kcpHdH8lo?feature=share
[9/27, 09:58] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 09:58] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574616130647654400?t=7s-X7SVu34UoqCT8nW44ZQ&s=08
[9/27, 09:58] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 08:38] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY*
Inviting you to *OFFLINE / ONLINE coaching* for
*JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE/ MUNSIF*
*Subject: THE CIVIL PROCEDUR E CODE, 1908*
_(Continuation)_
*Date : 27 SEPTEMBER 2022*
*Timing*: 10:45 am to 1:00 pm
*CONTACT NO : 7339650446*
[9/27, 09:54] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/27, 10:49] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 10:47] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574628229411143681?t=CGg6ACxvEOZ_oOamP_CkAg&s=08
[9/27, 10:49] Sekarreporter1: Bail granted on IOB ATM Skimmer Machine case
Harihara Arun Somasankar submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case as the petitioner happens to be the father of the main accused. Further there is no substantial theft of money involved in the present case and hence bail may be granted.
The Hon’ble High Court heard the submission and granted bail with complainace of certain conditions.
[9/27, 10:57] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 10:55] Sekarreporter1: #RSS ஊர்வலத்திற்கு அனுமதி வழங்கிய உத்தரவை திரும்ப பெறக்கோரிய மனுவை அவசர வழக்காக விசாரிக்க நீதிபதி மறுப்பு
அனுமதி வழங்கிய உத்தரவுக்கு எதிராக வேண்டுமானால் மேல்முறையீடு செய்ய நீதிபதி அறிவுரை. #MadrasHC
[9/27, 10:55] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/27, 11:03] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 11:03] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/-3hbnrj6U0U
[9/27, 11:03] Sekarreporter1: breaking:
உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தின் மூன்று அரசியல் சாசன அமர்வுகள் இன்று முதல் முதலாக நேரலை செய்யப்படுகிறது
EWS வழக்கு,டெல்லி vsமத்திய அரசு இடையிலான அதிகார மோதல் போக்கு வழக்கு, மகாராஷ்டிரா அரசியல் குழப்ப வழக்கு
youtube.com/watch?v=dYorAv…
youtube.com/watch?v=jBNVa2…
[9/27, 12:05] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 12:00] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/g4lHy005RFE
[9/27, 12:00] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 11:55] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 11:52] Thulsi Wla Adv: Hi sir Good morning sir I am Tulasi WLA sir your photos and videos very very nice sir keep it up sir your coverage functions excellent sir thank u sir 🙏🏻💐👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👏🏻👍🏻
[9/27, 11:54] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/27, 11:55] Thulsi Wla Adv: Our respected senior Advocate Masilamani convey my best to him sir thank u sir
[9/27, 11:56] Thulsi Wla Adv: That programme very nice sir 4 videos very nice sir
[9/27, 11:58] Sekarreporter1: Tks
[9/27, 13:01] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 12:58] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574662027397562369?t=zE–F0cHB4t40FXcFtaaPQ&s=08
[9/27, 12:58] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 12:57] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/vGUPpMbsLeU
[9/27, 12:57] Sekarreporter1: கொடநாடு கொலை கொள்ளை வழக்கு ஷீல்டு கவரிங் ஸ்டேட் பிபி அறிக்கை தாக்கல்
[9/27, 14:40] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 14:38] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574687207809773569?t=1spQJI6OKasdEhpTW0TRbg&s=08
[9/27, 14:39] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 13.04.2022
PRNOUNCED ON : 26.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W. P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16787 of 2016, 2981 and 3054 of 2017
A.V.Vahitha Begum
1.The Registrar,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram.
2.Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department, vs. … Petitioner in both cases
Higher Education Department Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents in both cases
(R2 is suo moto impleaded in W.P.(MD) Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017, vide this order, dated 26.09.2022)
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016: : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016, to quash the same and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017 and to quash the same.
In both cases:
For Petitioner : Mr.Radhakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
*****
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016 and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017.
3. The brief facts of the cases as stated in the affidavits are that the first respondent is a University which was originally formed under the Annamalai University Act in 1928. Thereafter the State of Tamil Nadu enacted another Act called “Annamalai University Act 2013” in supersession of earlier Act 1928 and the respondent University is governed under the new Act with saving clauses provided under the said Act. The new Act was notified on 24.9.2013. The petitioner had studied Post Graduation in M.A., Political Science through Open University System and completed Degree in November 2003 and the petitioner secured II Class in the said P.G. Programme in Madurai Kamaraj University. Before joining the course, the petitioner has completed +2 during March 1989.
Subsequent to the Degree, he also completed M.Phil., in 2007 with a specialized
Research on Political Science. He completed U.G. Degree in the respondent
University in B.A., Political Science during May 2012.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer vide Appointment Order No.58/2011 (C1), dated 22.01.2011 and had completed probation. The petitioner was appointment as Special Officer Grade-I in the Distance Education Department of the respondent University at Dindigul Study Centre and at present is working as non-teaching staff / clerks, which are governed by the Service Rules namely the Service Rules for the Clerical Staff & Other Servants Other Than Servants of the University. The post of Special Officer is coming under the said Rule. The post of Special Officer is classified in Sl.No.2 under the sanctioned strength and the prescribed qualification is PG with II Class. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer on 22.01.2011 and has completed 5 years 10 months of service as on the date of filing the writ petition. On 24.11.2016, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent, dated 16.11.2016, wherein the first respondent has stated that the appointment of Special Officer is coming under the Special Service Rules and the petitioner is not having requisite qualification. As per G.O.Ms. No. 116 P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2010, P.G. Degree holder who have obtained the said Degree in Open University System is disqualified to seek public appointment. The petitioner’s appointment is not in accordance to the said G.O. The petitioner has completed 10th, +2, but has obtained P.G. without going through U.G. but subsequently, has completed U.G. The said show cause notice, dated 16.11.2016, is challenged in the W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016 and there is an interim stay, vide order, dated 02.12.2016. Since the batta was not paid, the interim stay was not extended further. The petitioner has filed restoration petition and the same is pending in W.M.P. SR.No.11490 and 11491 of 2017.
5. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has issued the present impugned proceedings in University Order No.125 of 2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017, thereby, the petitioner’s appointment as Special Officer Grade I had been cancelled and modified as Lab Attender. Further, the pay fixation was also modified and the said order was given effect to from 31.01.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner had filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017.
6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the State
Government of Tamil Nadu had taken over the administration of the Annamalai University, vide Annamalai University Act 2013 and a Senior I.A.S. Officer was appointed as Administrator of the University on 04.04.2013 to streamline the administration of the Annamalai University. Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the petitioner’s educational qualifications were that the petitioner had completed SSLC, HSC, Diploma in Agriculture (2 years), M.A. Political Science, II Class (Open University System) and M.Phil., Political Science. The qualification prescribed for the post of Special Officer (Vide Appendix – C) in Serial No.2 is “PG with II Class”.
7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai’s case in Civil Appeal Nos. 4173, 4189 to 4191 of 2008, dated 25.02.2009, an
Equivalence Committee was constituted for its recommendations, as to whether a Post Graduate Degree obtained through Open University System without obtaining a Bachelor Degree can be considered for appointment. The Equivalence Committee resolved that those who possess P.G. Degree through Open University System without obtaining a basic degree cannot be considered for appointment.
Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.06.2010. The petitioner has possessed M.A., Degree with II Class through Open University System. As per the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner’s M.A., degree through Open University System cannot be considered as P.G. and the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. Hence, the Show Cause notice has been issued and the same was challenged in W.P.(MD)No. 23360 of 2016. Initially, an interim stay was granted and subsequently, for non-payment of batta, the said interim order was vacated automatically. Thereafter, through Resolution No.16, dated
08.02.2017, it was resolved that the petitioner ought to be down grade as Lab
Attender through an order, dated 27.02.2017. The appointment to the post of Special Officer was cancelled and modified as Lab Attender with effect from the day of joining in the University service, i.e. from 31.01.2011 in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.1900 as ordered previously in similar cases. The period of service of the petitioner in the post of Special Officer from 31.01.2011 will be taken into account for notional fixation of pay in the post of Lab Attender.
8. The petitioner has continuously worked for more than 6 years, but once an order of appointment itself is bad on the date of appointment, it cannot be rectified at a later stage and hence the appointment itself is not in accordance to law. It was found that out of 591 Special Officers, 85 Special Officers (72 Special
Officers and 13 House Wardens) had been appointed without minimum required educational qualifications. Hence, show cause notices were issued to the said 72 Special Officers and 13 House Wardens and after receiving the explanation from the individuals, without holding any enquiry or issuing charge memo, the University reverted them as Special Officer Grade-II. Aggrieved by the same, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court as well as before the Principal Seat of this Court and the same has been dismissed by an order dated 06.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any equity and the first respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. Heard Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both cases and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for first respondent in both cases.
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not completed UG degree before she had completed PG degree in open University system. The petitioner had completed 10th in the year 1987, then 12th in the year 1989, and then has undergone Diploma in Agriculture for two years (1991), then, has completed PG degree in M.A. Political Science 2003, then, M.Phil. Political Science 2007.
Thereafter, completed B.A. Political Science during May 2012. There are several judgments wherein it has been held that the pattern that has to be followed is 10+2+3+2. In this case, the petitioner has completed 10th and +2, without completing UG, she has completed Diploma for 2 years, then she has taken up M.A. for 2 years, then M.Phil., thereafter she has completed B.A. In short, the petitioner has done the course in reverse method.
11. The issue of pre-foundation course and foundation course was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Mohamed Hasan Refayee Vs. TNPSC and another in W.A.No.213 of 2018, dated 19.07.2019 wherein it has been held that until the passing of G.O.Ms.No.107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, the pre-foundation and foundation is equivalent to 10th and +2 respectively and the Government has also accepted the said view. Subsequently in the G.O.Ms.No.107 only it has been stated that it is not equivalent by accepting the report of the Equivalency Committee. Therefore, by taking into account the date of issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.107, a cut off date was fixed as 18.08.2009 in the Mohamed Hasan Refayee’s case and held any pre foundation and foundation course completed prior to 18.08.2009 is valid.
12. Subsequently another Division Bench while considering the G.O.Ms. No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 20.11.2017 in W.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 vide order dated 05.07.2022, has held that the cut off date ought to be fixed as 20.11.2017 by taking into account of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 20.11.2017. Since in G.O.Ms.No.144 only the government has declared that the pre foundation and foundation course cannot be recognized as equivalent to 10th and 12th. In other words, the G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, has only accepted the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, but G.O.Ms.No.
144 only stated that the pre foundation and foundation course is not equivalent to 10th and 12th. Admittedly prior to the said G.O.s the pre foundation and foundation course were considered as equivalent. Therefore the Hon’ble Division Bench has held the pre foundation and foundation course completed prior to 20.11.2017 is valid and but after 20.11.2017 is not valid.
13. The issue of course offered in Open Universities without the basic bachelor degree was considered in the case of Annamalai University represented by Registrar Vs. the Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590. In that case one N. Ramesh was temporarily promoted as Principle which was challenged by Sibi Madan Gabriel stating that the said N. Ramesh without completing bachelor degree has acquired master degree and hence he is not qualified to be promoted as Principle.
While considering the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said N. Ramesh is not eligible to be promoted, but his order of appointment cannot be quashed for the reason that on the date of completing the M.A. degree, it is possible to acquire the degree without completing the bachelor degree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the Madras High Court was also on the same view and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the said view. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“33. It is also not a case as has been contended by Mr. K. Parasaran as also Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, that we should invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Writ petitioners – respondents has moved the High Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a case of promotion. It is not a case of fresh entry in services. Our judgment would not affect the service of appellant Ramesh. He cannot only be promoted to the post of Principal of the Institute. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the Madras High Court opined:
“9. When all these reasons have been given by the Government for appointing the appellant as the Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the appointment and in particular, when the stand of the University Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the appellant obtained his M.A. Degree, it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as the principal cannot be quashed.”
In view of a long pending litigation, in our opinion, it will be unjust to deprive the writ petitioner – respondent from his lawful demand. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court has opined as stated supra. On perusing the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.1221 of 2005 and W.A. No. 82 of 2006 and W.P.No.
36307 of 2004, it has been held in para 7 of the judgment that,
“7. We were not sure to what extent we could rely on these letters which are not supported by affidavit. Therefore in order to ascertain the correct position, we issued notice to Mr. Udayakumar, the Learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission and Mr. Udaykumar appeared in Court today and submitted that at the relevant point of time when the appellant obtained the M.A. Degree, the degree granted by the Annamalai University was a valid one and that the U.G.C. recognises such degrees.”
After ascertaining from the U.G.C. counsel, thereafter the Hon’ble Division
Bench has held as stated supra i.e.
“9. When all these reasons have been given by the Government for appointing the appellant as the Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the appointment and in particular, when the stand of the University Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the appellant obtained his M.A. Degree, it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as the principal cannot be quashed.”
15. A similar case was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in the case of K. Sakthi Rani Vs the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010 (2) Law Weekly 746 and the question for consideration is whether the persons who studied law without basic degree, but obtained Post Graduate degree in Open Universities are entitled to be enrolled as Advocates and the judgment rendered in Annamalai case is relied on.
In K. Sakthi Rani’s case it has been held that, it is after the Annamalai University’s case the Bar Council refused to enrol the advocates who had not qualified bachelor’s degree, but obtained master degree in open universities. In the said Judgment it has been further held as under:
“49. Admittedly, neither the petitioners nor the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India are parties to the above said judgment. The issue involved therein was the promotion of the parties involved therein. Even in the said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that the appointment cannot be nullified, but the appellant will not get the promotion based upon the said degree. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court was applying the law only for future promotion and it did not take away the right which has become accrued and vested.
…
51. Considering the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and applying the same to the present case on hand, we are of the considered opinion that the above said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would be a binding precedent insofar as it holds that a degree obtained under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 from an Open University is not a valid degree in the eye of law. However, the said judgment cannot be construed to hold that a person, who after obtaining the said degree from the Open University and thereafter, completed law course, would be barred from getting himself enrolled. In other words, in a case where, a right has been crystallised and vested, then the same cannot be taken away.
52. Hence, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners herein who have completed the law course even before the said judgment. Hence, we answer Point (iv) in favour of the petitioners on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Even in the present case the petitioner had completed M.A. degree in the year 2003 i.e. even prior to the judgment rendered in the Annamalai University case.
In such circumstances applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid Hon’ble Division Bench judgment and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Annamalai’s case, this Court is of the considered opinion the petitioner should succeed.
16. The Hon’ble Division Bench further held in the said K. Sakthi Rani case that it is a well settled principles of law that a rule is to be construed as prospective unless the same is made retrospective. In other words until and unless it is shown that the provisions are enacted with an intention to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective alone. In the present case there is no material to show that there are provisions or rules or government orders which states that there is retrospective effect. The Annamalai University had allowed such recruitment and the candidates were in service until the university was taken over by the Government. The issue was raised after the government had taken over the university. Moreover after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University case, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 116 P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2010, wherein it is stated that the P.G. Degree holder who have obtained the said Degree in Open University System without qualifying bachelor’s degree is disqualified to seek public appointment. Any government order would come into effect from the date of issuance of the government order, since the G.O.Ms.No.116 is issued on 18.08.2010. Therefore the candidates who have obtained master degree in open university without qualifying bachelor degree is not eligible for public employment from 18.08.2010 and the cut off date is only 18.08.2010. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner and the similarly placed persons ought to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered in Annamalai’s case read with the
G.O.Ms.No.116. It is pertinent to state herein that it is because of the
Annamalai’s case the government has raised this issue, but in Annamalai’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proposition laid down in the case is applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively. In the present case the petitioner had completed open university degree in the year 2003 and hence the petitioner is eligible to be considered for the Special Officer post.
17. Now in the above set of facts the principles of promissory estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation, and equity ought to be considered. On this aspect also the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of K. Sakthi Rani has considered and held that the principle of promissory estoppel is not only based on equity, but on honesty, good faith which is the basis of rule of law and that an action which has already been completed by a party, cannot be nullified by the other party when the said action was done based upon the promise. More so a public authority having committed to the rule of law cannot claim immunity to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further held as under:
“75. It is also well settled principles of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can even be applied in relation to the statute, more so when it is sought to be invoked against the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and not against University Grants Commission. In the present case on hand, as observed earlier, the facts involved would clearly show that the petitioners are not at fault. On the other hand, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India have allowed the persons who are identically placed like the petitioners to enter into the law course and complete and thereafter, enrol. Even the petitioners have been allowed to the law course and complete. It is also seen that after the judgment of the Division Bench, for the subsequent years, various Law Universities recognised by the Bar Council of India had not permitted the students with Open University degree.”
The Hon’ble Court further held that,
“91. It is said that law and equity operate on distinct and separate fields. It is also a well settled principle of law that when there is a conflict between the law and equity, law would prevail. It is said “two streams have met and now run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix.” However, law has to be understood to mean, the law in accordance with the Act, rules and regulations which can be described as ‘common law’. In other words, equity would only mean ‘natural justice’. In that sense, broadly speaking, equity would also form part of law. However, by applying the facts of the present case as discussed above to the principles of estoppel, legitimate expectation and equity and on a consideration of the hardship and agony that would be caused to the petitioners, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the petitioners are entitled to get the relief based upon the above said principles of law.
92. On consideration of the above said factual and legal issues, the following conclusions are arrived at:
…
(iii)The Bar Council of India is well within its rights to insist
that a person having a decree from the Open University under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, cannot be allowed to join a law course in a Law University recognised by it and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India can also refuse to enrol such a person who joins the law course and completes the same. The judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and others, is binding on the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India insofar as the applicability of the University Grants Commission Act and Regulations, but the said judgment cannot be applied to the petitioners who have already obtained the law degree. The Rules of Legal Education, 2008, cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners who had already completed their law course at the time of coming into force of the Rules;
…
(v)The petitioners are entitled to succeed on the principles
of promissory estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation and equity;
In the present case on hand, the facts as stated supra would clearly show that the University had recruited based on the degree and appointed the petitioner and the petitioner had put in nearly six years of service in the post of Special Officer. It is thereafter when the Government had taken over the University, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lab Attender. Moreover the U.G.C. has submitted before the Hon’ble Division Bench that “it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree”, in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the present case.
18. Insofar as the application of legitimate expectation is concerned, this may not be a legal right, but the doctrine can be invoked where there is an irreparable loss to the party. After the judgment in the case of Annamalai
University, no candidate is eligible with the post graduate qualification from the Open University. But in the present case the petitioner had completed the course prior to the said judgment and was recruited into service. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], the Constitution Bench referred to the claim of the employees based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and observed as under:
“46. … The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.”
19. Similarly, when the decision taken by the authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked. In the present case the Annamalai University has offered the Open Universities courses. Several candidates have passed such degrees with legitimate expectation. Thereafter the Annamalai University has called for “walk-in-interview” and appointed such persons. The petitioners and similarly placed persons were appointed and had allowed to continue to work. Thereafter the Government had taken over the University after several allegations of maladministration were reported. After taking over, the Government has held that such appointments are illegal. But the U.G.C. has categorically admitted in Annamalai University case before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 14.02.2006, that at the relevant point of time such degrees were admissible. The said practice were followed by the Annamalai University until 2013 i.e. until the University was taken over by the Government. Therefore the appointments which were made prior to taking over of the University cannot be disturbed i.e. any appointment prior to 04.04.2013 cannot be disturbed. In the present case, the Annamalai University having recruited more than 571 persons as Special Officer, but only 85 Special Officers (72 Special Officers and 13 House Wardens) were appointed without minimum required educational qualifications as prescribed, those persons have rendered service for more than five years and their service ought to be protected. The petitioner was reverted to the post of Lab Attender and there is a wide difference in the salary. It is stated that the salary to Special Officer is Rs.
30,000/- and the salary to the Lab Assistant is Rs.20,000/- and the revision of pay was given effect to from the date of their original appointment as Special Officer. The petitioner is affected since after allowing the petitioner to undergo the course, by putting so much of time, money and efforts, the petitioner and similarly place persons are prevented from continuing in the post of Special Officer and their salary is revised. The entire exercise done by way of using the infrastructure, giving education, etc., would become waste and futile. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of legitimate expectation is favouring the petitioner.
20. This Court with pain records that such issue arises due to lack of proper policy decision. The Annamalai University while admitting any candidates under Open University system ought to have fixed the qualification for admission to the
P.G. course as, “should have completed U.G. degree”. But the Annamalai University had never fixed such qualification before admitting the students. In fact, such a course ought not to have been established at all. This has given legitimate expectation to the candidates to qualify themselves in the higher education without the basic qualification. If a course is not acceptable for any job, then such course should never been offered at all. When the University is offering such courses, then it gives a legitimate expectation to the candidates to take up the course for their carrier advancement. The Universities, the Government and the job providers should act in a coordinated way, so that there is no hassle for the candidates to compete a course and seek job opportunities.
21. In the new education policy, a scheme has been formulated to recognise the qualification completed every year. If a person has completed first year in under graduation, that would be recognized. If a person has completed second year that can be recognized. Likewise, completion of each and every year of course is recognised. This was formulated since several candidates could not complete the course due to family circumstances and various other reasons. A person spending their life, time and money to qualify themselves for higher studies ought to be recognized, that too in India, any gain of knowledge is given due recognition from our ancient time onwards.
22. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Annamalai University has recruited more than 591 persons as Special Officers without adequate sanctioned post, hence wherever sanctioned posts are available the Special Officers are accommodated and rest of them are accommodated in the Government post deputed to other departments. If the petitioner is retained as Special Officer, then that would affect the government financially. However such plea cannot be entertained for the discussions and reasons stated supra. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Government having taken over the University, is bound to protect the persons already recruited and the Government is bound to accommodate the petitioner and the similarly placed persons in their original position itself with pay protection. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to retain the petitioner in the post of Special Officer and disburse the salary as applicable to the post of the Special Officer.
23. With the above said observations, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 26.09.2022 Internet : Yes
Tmg
S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg
To
Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Higher Education Department Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
W.P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017
26.09.2022
[9/27, 15:47] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/27/watch-rss-case-appeal-mhc-acj-and-krishna-kumar-judge-order-on-youtube/
[9/27, 16:17] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 16:16] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574712062621917184?t=BvJeQyTLDDf2JM4VRyRWMg&s=08
[9/27, 16:16] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 16:13] Sekarreporter1: State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah accuses the parents of the girl of not cooperating with the investigation. Says, they are not handing over the girl’s mobile phone despite having issued summons thrice. “Where is that mobile phone? Why are they shying away?” he asks.
[9/27, 16:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 16:12] Sekarreporter1: Justice V Sivagnanam of Madras HC asks why shouldn’t he close a petition filed by the parents of Kallakurichi schoolgirl, whose death had led to large scale violence, since the investigation into the death had already been transferred to CB-CID by the DGP. @THChennai
[9/27, 16:13] Sekarreporter1: Advocate R Sankarasubbu, representing the parents, urges the court to keep the case pending and monitor the investigation since the parents believe that it is a clear case of cold blooded murder.
[9/27, 16:23] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 16:21] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574713237421326336?t=w2E3UzaYHbHEsN3J9UpSPA&s=08
[9/27, 16:22] Sekarreporter1: PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI-104 PRESENT:- THIRU P.MUTHUKUMAR, STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER. Roc.No.41/All/2022-15, Dated: 26.09.2022. Sir/Madam, Sub: Posting of Law Officers for Courts in charge- Reg. Ref: 1. Proceeding No. 0272/2022 dated 14.09.2022 of the Learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. https://sekarreporter.com/proceedings-of-the-state-government-pleader-high-court-chennai-104-present-thiru-p-muthukumar-state-government-pleader-roc-no-41-all-2022-15/
[9/27, 16:30] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 15:48] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/27/watch-rss-case-appeal-mhc-acj-and-krishna-kumar-judge-order-on-youtube/
[9/27, 16:28] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Of3fQVEIRzk
[9/27, 16:28] Sekarreporter1: Rss case appeal mhc Acj and krishna kumar judge order
[9/27, 16:36] Sekarreporter1: [9/27, 16:32] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/27/watch-online-game-judges-nisha-banu-and-anantj-venkadesh-order-on-youtube/
[9/27, 16:32] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/5RNGoVdUHeM
[9/27, 19:25] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/9CW7uCMx9l0
[9/27, 19:25] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Vnjtmgot5lM
[9/28, 06:49] Sekarreporter1: Madras high. Court sep 27th order https://sekarreporter.com/madras-high-court-sep-27th-order/
[9/28, 06:57] Sekarreporter1: 27, 06:45] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574568267607592960?s=08 [9/27, 06:45] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment Reserved on : 19.09.2022 Judgment Pronounced on : 23.09.2022 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY A.S.No.53 of 2002 M.Mahadevan alias Mahadevaiah .. Appellant Versus https://sekarreporter.com/27-0645-sekarreporter1-https-twitter-com-sekarreporter1-status-1574568267607592960s08-9-27-0645-sekarreporter1-in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-madras-judgment-reserved-on-19-09-2022/
[9/28, 06:57] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574687207809773569?t=1spQJI6OKasdEhpTW0TRbg&s=08 [9/27, 14:39] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 13.04.2022 PRNOUNCED ON : 26.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W. P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16787 of 2016, 2981 and 3054 of 2017 https://sekarreporter.com/https-twitter-com-sekarreporter1-status-1574687207809773569t1spqji6okasdehptw0trbgs08-9-27-1439-sekarreporter1-before-the-madurai-bench-of-madras-high-court-reserved-on-13-04-2022-prnounc/
[9/28, 10:32] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 10:21] Sekarreporter1: Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of Madras HC grants bail to Pachaiyappa’s College student who claimed to be ‘route thala’ & threatened train passengers by brandishing a knife and stones. Directs him to serve inmates of Mithra rehabilitation centre. @THChennai
[9/28, 10:22] Sekarreporter1: Commissioner of GST has denied any attempt to damage the image of A.R. Rahman by accusing him of evading payment of service tax through artificial segregation of a bouquet of services rendered by him while composing & recording music for movies
[9/28, 10:24] Sekarreporter1: Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of Madras HC grants bail to a biker, who performed stunts on Anna Salai, on condition that he should post road safety awareness video on Instagram, distribute pamphlets at Teynampet signal &serve in trauma ward of GH @THChennai
thehindu.com/news/national/…
[9/28, 10:26] Sekarreporter1: Madras HC has sought Centre’s response to a PIL filed by Bar Council of TN & Puducherry co-chairman K Balu complaining about delay in widening 168-km long Vikravandi – Thanjavur stretch of national highway. He complains of potholes & black spots @THChennai
[9/28, 10:37] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 10:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574988525891907585?t=IdTfIJbIApNe9sQ6ccMkAA&s=08
[9/28, 10:35] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 10:21] Sekarreporter1: Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of Madras HC grants bail to Pachaiyappa’s College student who claimed to be ‘route thala’ & threatened train passengers by brandishing a knife and stones. Directs him to serve inmates of Mithra rehabilitation centre. @THChennai
[9/28, 10:22] Sekarreporter1: Commissioner of GST has denied any attempt to damage the image of A.R. Rahman by accusing him of evading payment of service tax through artificial segregation of a bouquet of services rendered by him while composing & recording music for movies
[9/28, 10:24] Sekarreporter1: Justice AD Jagadish Chandira of Madras HC grants bail to a biker, who performed stunts on Anna Salai, on condition that he should post road safety awareness video on Instagram, distribute pamphlets at Teynampet signal &serve in trauma ward of GH @THChennai
thehindu.com/news/national/…
[9/28, 10:26] Sekarreporter1: Madras HC has sought Centre’s response to a PIL filed by Bar Council of TN & Puducherry co-chairman K Balu complaining about delay in widening 168-km long Vikravandi – Thanjavur stretch of national highway. He complains of potholes & black spots @THChennai
[9/28, 11:24] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 11:10] Sekarreporter1: #JUSTIN : போக்குவரத்து கழகத்தில் பணிபுரிந்து ஓய்வுபெற்ற நடத்துநருக்கு ஓய்வூதியம் அளிக்கும் விவகாரம்
மேல்முறையீடு மனு தாக்கல் செய்து நீதிமன்ற நேரத்தை வீணடித்தமைக்காக தமிழ்நாடு அரசுக்கு ₨5 லட்சம் அபராதம் விதித்தது உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்
#TNGovt #ChennaiHC #ThanthiTV
[9/28, 11:23] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/28, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575011695852138496?t=-osxFWC6BJQdg0U-h-utMg&s=08
[9/28, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 11:34] Sekarreporter1: Justice Indira Banerjee: “There are judges who are quieter, but there is a feeling that they are finding it difficult to swallow that the bench is headed by a woman.” #SupremeCourt
Read the interview here: barandbench.com/interviews/lit…
[9/28, 11:37] Sekarreporter1: On junior judge not having time to read judgments authored by Justice Banerjee
“Whether it is that I authored the judgment, or I am a woman judge or whether it is that he would not have the guts to do this if the senior judge not me, I do not know”
[9/28, 11:38] Sekarreporter1: [EXCLUSIVE] How a junior brother judge did not allow five judgments to be delivered: Supreme Court Justice Indira Banerjee reveals [Part I]
interview by @DebayonRoy
#SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt
[9/28, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 12:05] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575011151792189440?t=IqMF1OGCtI0GKGjm-OXBAw&s=08
[9/28, 12:05] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 11:59] Sekarreporter1: Today afternoon mhaa seminor coming Friday acting chief justice TRaja felicitation in mhaa 1.30
[9/28, 11:59] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/28, 12:30] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 12:29] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574988525891907585?t=IdTfIJbIApNe9sQ6ccMkAA&s=08
[9/28, 12:29] Sekarreporter1: #ரூட்தல என கூறி புறநகர் ரயிலில் பயணிகளை மிரட்டிய பச்சையப்பன் கல்லூரி மாணவனுக்கு. நூதன நிபந்தனை..
#மித்ராமறுவாழ்வு மைய ஊழியர்களுக்கு உதவியாக இருக்க வேண்டும் – எனநிபந்தனை..
மாணவனின் படிப்பு பாதிக்கப்பட்டுவிடக் கூடாது என்பதற்காகவே முன்ஜாமீன்..
#routethala
#MadrashighCourt
[9/28, 12:29] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 12:23] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/imranhindu/status/1574958273509195776?t=ymyBBTV_Yv0bz26OPBih5Q&s=19
[9/28, 12:24] Sekarreporter1: 15
NEWSCITIESCHENNAI
CHENNAIHC grants conditional anticipatory bail to college student who threatened suburban train passengers with a knife
The Hindu Bureau
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 00:53 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 01:58 IST
It directs him to serve inmates of Mithra Rehabilitation Centre every Saturday for six weeks
The Madras High Court has granted conditional anticipatory bail to a Pachaiyappa’s College student who, along with his other collegemates, had threatened the passengers of a suburban train by brandishing knives and stones by claiming himself to be the ‘route thala.’
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira directed the student to visit Mithra Rehabilitation Centre for the intellectually and physically challenged children and young adults in Chennai every Saturday for a period of six weeks and assist the staff there in taking care of the inmates.
The judge also directed the petitioner to submit a one page report every week to the home keeper. The advance bail was granted after the judge summoned the petitioner’s father to the court and found that he was serving as a cashier in a small hotel and educating his son with great difficulty.
Observing that he was granting the relief to ensure that the career of the youngster did not get spoilt, the judge said that the student must be made to realise the meaning of humanness too since the police had booked him for serious offences of threatening people with weapons.
Our code of editorial values
Comments
Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team.
Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not ‘the’, n is not ‘and’).
We may remove hyperlinks within comments.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.
TRENDING TODAY
CORONAVIRUSRUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISISBHARAT JODO YATRA
TRENDING TODAY
Team Gehlot In The Wrong, Says Congress.; CM Denies Role In Revolt
Turning Inward: On The Rise Of Far-Right Parties In Europe
PM Modi Arrives In Japan To Attend Former Premier Abe’s State Funeral
All Eyes On Sachin Pilot Who Is Awaiting Sonia’s Decision
Tense Japan Holds Funeral For Assassinated Ex-Leader Abe
TRENDING TOPIC
Rajasthan
Election
India-Japan
Rajasthan
TRENDING ON OUR GROUP SITES
BUSINESSLINE
GST
Insurance
Accountancy And Auditing
Disinvestment
About Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Contacts Archive Print Subscription ePaper Digital Subscription Rss Feeds Sitemap
[9/28, 13:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 12:43] Sekarreporter1: During hearing of a 2007 writ petition filed by VK Sasikala against ED proceedings…
Adv A Navaneethakrishnan: I am not appearing in this case anymore My Lord
Judge: Why?
Adv: Due to change of circumstances My Lord
Judge (in a lighter vein): Oh, you support the ED now?
[9/28, 12:43] Sekarreporter1: Adv: No My Lord. I am not on record anymore. There’s a change of Vakalat. This is an old case. Then, I appeared for the petitioner & Senior Counsel P Wilson appeared for the ED. This case has been lucky because both of us became Members of Parliament thereafter.
[9/28, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: N sathis Kumar j case adj 27 /10/2022
[9/28, 13:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 13:12] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575028149775368192?t=XBRokui4-LM4kviFfW6Jew&s=08
[9/28, 13:12] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.09.2022
DELIVERED ON : 28.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A(MD)No.9 of 2020
1.Solamalai
2.Selvakani .. Appellants/ Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kadamalaikundu Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.338/2012) .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2019 in S.C.No.105 of 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Session Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni, made in S.C.No.105 of 2013, dated 25.09.2019, convicting each of the appellants for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 201 IPC, have filed this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants had a property dispute with P.W-5, who is the brother of A1. Four or five days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused persons wanted to remove their agricultural produce and hence, sought for the permission of P.W-5 to take it through their pathway and P.W-5 and his wife Anuthiammal (deceased) refused to grant the permission. According to the prosecution, this incident resulted in the accused persons deciding to do away with Anuthiammal and pursuant to the same, on 28.12.2012, at about 11.00 a.m., when Anuthiammal was alone in her house, the accused persons lured her to their house which was near the house of the deceased and on the deceased coming to their house, poured kerosene on the deceased and lit her on fire. Thereafter, they are said to have immersed the head of the deceased in an open water tub and as a result, the deceased suffocated and died. The accused persons, thereafter, are alleged to have taken the deceased to her house and created a scene as if the deceased hung from the ceiling with the help of her saree and thereby attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence. In view of the same, charges were framed against each of the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W-25 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and material objects were identified and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.12.
4. The Trial Court questioned the appellants under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating materials that were collected in the course of Trial. The accused persons denied the same as false.
5. The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and thereby, convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner mentioned supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have filed this appeal.
6. Heard Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
7. This Court has carefully considered the materials available on record and the submissions made on either side.
8. The case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution are:
The demise of the deceased was homicidal and the same was established by examining the postmortem Doctor (P.W-22) and by marking the postmortem certificate (Ex.P8).
The motive for the occurrence has been sought to be established through the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-5 and P.W-7.
The accused persons were last seen with the deceased and the same was sought to be established through the evidence of P.W-3.
The recovery of M.O.2 to M.O.7 through the evidence of P.W-10 through Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
The non-explanation of the burn injury sustained by A2 immediately after the incident, even when a relevant question was put to A2 under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C.
The Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P12, which shows the location of the house of the accused persons and the deceased and the fact that no one else was living there.
9. It is now a well settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and the circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
10. The prosecution wanted to establish the motive by projecting the property dispute between A1 and P.W-5, who are brothers. For this purpose, the prosecution examined P.W-13, who turned hostile. Through this witness, the prosecution wanted to establish the property dispute and also about the said witness seeing the deceased hanging with burn injuries and informing the same to P.W-1 through phone. There are two sources of information for P.W-1, who is the brother of the deceased, who gave the complaint (Ex.P1). The first source of information is P.W-13 and since this witness turned hostile, the so called information from P.W-13 is not established. The other source of information is P.W-4, who is a relative of A2. This witness in his evidence clearly states that he came to know of the incident only through persons who spoke about the same in the locality and he went to the scene of occurrence only around 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. on 28.12.2012. In view of the same, there is no possibility of P.W-4 informing P.W-1 about the incident. If both these sources cannot be relied upon, it is not known as to how P.W-1 explained about this incident through the complaint marked as Ex.P1.
11. According to the prosecution, the motive behind the crime is the property dispute. It is stated that A1 was asking P.W-5 to lease his portion of the property and the same was refused by P.W-5. However, Ex.D1 which was marked through P.W-5, shows that P.W-5 had already leased his portion of the property to A1 as early as in the year 2010 itself. This is further substantiated by the evidence of P.W-7, who also talks about P.W-5 already giving on lease his property to A1 and he acknowledges the existence of Ex.D1.
12. In the above circumstances, the motive as projected by the prosecution stands in a very weak wicket, since, even as per the charge framed against the accused persons, P.W-5 refused to give his portion of the property on lease and pursuant to the same, the accused persons were prevented to bring the produce through the pathway by P.W-5 and the deceased and the same resulted in the deceased being done to death by the accused persons. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that P.W-5 already had a dispute with the deceased and he was not involved in the so called incident where the accused persons were refused to be given the permission to use the pathway. Hence, the property dispute and the so called incident that took place four or five days prior to the date of occurrence, has not been substantially proved by the prosecution.
13. This Court has already questioned the source of information of P.W-1 as to how he came to know about the incident and gave the complaint. The inquest report (Ex.P13) reads as if P.W-5 was the first person, who had seen the deceased hanging with burn injuries. This statement made in the inquest report runs contrary to the evidence of P.W-5. The inquest report was prepared by P.W-25 on 28.12.2012. In the inquest report, a finding has been given as if A1 and A2 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire and thereafter, suffocated her by forcing her head into an open water tub and thereafter, took the deceased to her house and created a scene as if she hung and committed suicide. All this information could not have been ascertained by P.W-25 even before the arrest of A1 on 29.12.2012 and the arrest of A2 on 30.12.2012. When P.W-25 was cross-examined and was specifically questioned as to how he had written the findings in the inquest report, he has stated that he collected information from P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-5. Insofar as P.W-1 and P.W-2 are concerned, their source of information has already been doubted since P.W-13 and P.W-4 do not talk about providing the information to P.W-1. That apart, P.W-5 was not even present in the scene of occurrence. Hence, the inculpatory statements made in the inquest report by P.W-25 becomes questionable. In the present case, even as per the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-5, there is a long standing dispute between P.W-5 and the deceased. Dowry complaints were given against P.W-5 and his brothers and P.W-5 was not in good terms with the deceased. There was no effective investigation on the side of the police on the cause of death qua P.W-5. It is quite curious that P.W-5 was absent before and after the occurrence and according to him, he came to the house at about 4.30 p.m. and at that point of time, he found the police and the V.A.O. in his house. This witness falls under the category of a wholly unreliable witness.
14. Insofar as recovery is concerned, the evidence of P.W-10 has been relied upon by the prosecution, through whom Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were marked. This witness was present along with 10-20 persons belonging to the locality and he was asked to sign by the police and he signed. Hence, the so called recovery of M.O.2 to M.O.7 through this witness does not enhance the credibility of the case of the prosecution.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was placing a lot of thrust on the last seen theory and the non-explanation of injuries by A2. Insofar as the last seen theory is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Ex.A2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P12-Rough Sketch. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these two documents clearly show that it was only the accused persons and the deceased, who were living in the nearby houses and P.W-3 has spoken about A2 coming out of the house and informing about the deceased setting herself on fire and attempting to grab her as a result of which, she sustained injuries.
16. Insofar as the last seen theory is concerned, except P.W-3 relied upon by the prosecution, there is no other witness. P.W-3, during the course of cross-examination, has categorically admitted that he went to the scene of occurrence at around 11.00 a.m. and by 11.30 a.m., the police had come to the scene of occurrence. This witness does not talk about seeing A1 and A2 coming out of the scene of occurrence. This witness only speaks about A2 informing him about the occurrence and she sustaining burn injuries. There is absolutely nothing stated against A1 and there is not a single witness, who even saw A1 in the scene of occurrence or coming out of the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P.W-3 is not sufficient to establish the last seen theory in this case and the circumstance has not been fully proved.
17. Insofar as the burn injuries sustained by A2 and she not being able to give a satisfactory answer, the Investigation Officer- P.W-25 categorically admits that he did not investigate the injuries sustained by A2. The question that was put to A2 under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C pertained to the evidence of P.W-3. This evidence was not directly on the issue as to how A2 sustained burn injuries. The Trial Court has relied upon the remand report where the injury was noted when A2 was remanded. Such reliance placed by the Trial Court is unsustainable since a specific question should be put to the accused person as to how she sustained burn injuries and a record which was not even put to the accused, cannot be relied upon to render a finding.
18. It is very clear from Ex.A2 and Ex.P12 that the accused persons and the deceased were living in separate houses. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was done to death in the house of the accused persons and thereafter, she was taken to her house and the accused persons created a scene as if the deceased hanged to death and thereby, attempted to conceal evidence on the offence committed. Nobody saw A1 and A2 coming out of the house of the deceased after the incident. Only if somebody had seen them, the last seen theory will come into play. In the absence of the same, the last seen theory as projected by the prosecution must fail. That apart, the burn injury sustained by A2 and she not being able to explain the same will not come within the scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, since, such a question was not directly put to A2. Section 106 will come into operation only if the prosecution establishes that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. The prosecution having failed to establish last seen theory, cannot rely upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act only based on an injury sustained by A2. This is more so where there is not a scrap of evidence available against A1 and the actual property dispute wa s between A1 and P.W-5.
19. The evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W-22) and the postmortem report (Ex.P8) marked through him, does not in any way help the case of the prosecution. The report states that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to the combined effects of drowning and ante-mortem burns of about 40%. When the prosecution has not established the involvement of the accused persons in the crime, the fact that it was a homicidal death, cannot be put against the accused persons on assumptions and surmises.
20. In the present case, P.W-17 has admittedly taken photographs of the scene of occurrence and it was stored in the compact disk. For reasons best known to the Investigation Officer, those photographs were not even marked as a document in this case through P.W-17. If the photographs had been marked and questions had been put to P.W-17, there would have been more clarity to the case of the prosecution.
21. It is very unfortunate that A1 has been convicted in this case without any evidence against him and after thoroughly searching the entire papers, the only evidence that has been put against him is the arrest of A1 and recovery of M.O.8. Not one circumstance has been proved against A1 and he has been convicted and sentenced on mere assumptions and on the so called property dispute between him and P.W-5.
22. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case through circumstantial evidence and the test applied by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has not been fulfilled.
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court made in S.C.No.105 of 2013 dated 25.09.2019.
24. In the result,
(i) This Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni, against the appellants in S.C.No.105 of 2013 dated 25.09.2019, is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges.
(iii) Since the first appellant/A1 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 second appellant/A2 after the sentence was suspended by this Court through order dated 22.06.2021 shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the second appellant shall be refunded to her.
[J.N.B, J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
28.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Fast Track Court,
Theni.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kadamalaikundu Police Station,
Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PJL
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.9 of 2020
28.09.2022
[9/28, 13:19] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 13:17] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575028149775368192?t=rm9SB6t4DR3Xk_7N3Yd3yA&s=08
[9/28, 13:17] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on Pronounced on
26.09.2022 28.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl. A. (MD)Nos.493, 619 of 2019 and 349 of 2021
Senthilumar .. Appellant/A3 in
Crl.A.(MD) No.493/2019
Shenbagaraj .. Appellant/A2 in
Crl.A.(MD) No.619/2019
Gurusamy .. Appellant/A1 in
Crl.A.(MD) No.349/2021
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(in Crime No. 1105 of 2013) .. Respondent/Complainant
Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 in S.C.No.369/2015, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior counsel for
Mr.K.Prabhu (CA No.493/2019)
Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
for CA Nos.349/2021 and 619/2019
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH
These appeals have been filed by A1 to A3 against the judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, made in SC No.369/2015 dated 13.09.2019, convicting and sentencing them in the following manner:
Provisions under which convicted Rank of the accused Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount
341 IPC A1
to
A3 To undergo simple imprisonment for one month each Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
302 r/w 34 (2 counts) IPC A1 to A3 To undergo imprisonment for life (2 counts) each. Rs.2,500/- (2 counts), each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. (2 counts)
506 (II) IPC A1 to A3 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were involved in the business of selling pork and they seem to have created pollution in the locality, while burning the pigs. The people living in the locality had complained about the same and the accused persons did not heed to their request. Ultimately, P.W.6 had complained about this to deceased Murugan (D1) and Balamurugan (D2) and they, in turn, complained to the local body and a police complaint was also given in this regard. An inspection was also conducted by the Inspector belonging to the local body and the accused persons were also called to the police station on 24.10.2013 and were warned. This incident was projected as the motive by the prosecution and had developed enmity against the deceased persons.
2.1. On 05.11.2013, P.W.1, who is the son of D1, was informed by one Pandi (P.W.14) that the parties can compromise the matter and they can come over to the house of A3 to hold a discussion. On coming to know of the same, D1 and D2 went together in a two-wheeler on 06.11.2013 at about 9.15 a.m. and they were followed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they were going towards the house of A3. At that point of time, the accused persons waylaid D1 and D2 and abused them in filthy language and they were attacked indiscriminately with aruval M.Os.1 to 3. As a result, D1 and D2 sustained grievous injuries and they died on the spot. Thereafter they ran away from the scene of occurrence.
2.2. A complaint was given by P.W.1, who is the son of D1 and an FIR came to be registered on 06.11.2013 at 9.45 a.m. by P.W.26. The investigation was conducted by P.W.27 and a final report came to be laid against the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. The case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin and it was made over to the Court below. Charges were framed against A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) and 506(II) IPC and a further charge of Section 294(b) IPC as against A1.
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.27 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, besides M.O.1 to M.O.23. The incriminating materials were put to the accused persons, while questioning them under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.
4. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeals have been filed before this Court.
5. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant/A3, learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
6. In the present case, the star witnesses on the side of the prosecution are P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were projected as eyewitnesses. P.W.4 to P.W.6, P.W.11 and P.W.12 were also examined to prove the motive behind the crime.
7. The main grounds that were projected by the learned counsel for the appellants are,
The very presence of the eyewitnesses in the scene of occurrence is doubtful.
The inquest reports that were marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 run contra to the ocular evidence.
The accused persons were seen in the police station by P.W.1 and P.W.2 between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. along with M.Os.1 to 3, whereas, the arrest of the accused persons took place only on 06.11.2013 at 4.30 p.m.
The witnesses speak about seeing the dead bodies of the deceased in the Government hospital between 10.00 a.m. and 10.45 a.m., whereas the inquest reports marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 show that the dead bodies were verified in the scene of occurrence between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.
There was an unexplained delay in the FIR reaching the Court only at 6.20 p.m. on 06.11.2013.
There was an unexplained delay of 77 days in sending the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses to the Court and the Investigating officer was not able to give any explanation for the delay.
The arrest and recovery from the accused persons is highly doubtful, since, according to the prosecution, it took place between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 06.11.2013, whereas, the accused persons were seen in the police station between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p..m.
The weapons that were used to commit the offence M.O.1 to M.O.3 were not even shown to the postmortem Doctor and the injuries were not matched with the weapons used to commit the crime.
In the present case, it is seen from the rough sketch (Ex.P13) that lot of houses were available and the occurrence had taken place opposite to the house of one Jeyaraj and not a single independent witness was examined and all the witnesses examined are related witnesses.
The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is wholly dependant on the evidence of one Pandi, who is said to have called the parties for a compromise talk, whereas, Pandi was not examined in these lines and even the two-wheeler, in which, P.W.1 and P.W.2 travelled was not produced as a material object in this case.
P.W.11 has spoken about the dead bodies being taken for postmortem by 11 a.m. In such an event, the evidence of P.W.18 and P.W.19, who are two police officials, who took the dead bodies for postmortem, becomes false.
The postmortem Doctor examined as P.W.20 categorically states in Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 that rigor mortis had set in both the limbs, when she started the postmortem. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 9.15 a.m. and rigor mortis could not have set in in both the limbs within 6 hrs. and that shows that the incident did not take place, at the time, as attempted to be projected by the prosecution.
P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their evidence, speak about lifting the bodies of the deceased, which were soaked with blood. If that is so, their clothes must have been sent for serology report to match the blood group and that could have substantiated the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence. Curiously, this was not done by the prosecution.
The learned counsel, in order to substantiate their submissions, relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Arumugam @ Doss V. State reported in CDJ 2007 MHC 5204
(b) Viswanathan and another reported in 2013 (1) MLJ Crl 516
(c) Murugaiah v. State reported in 2018 (1) MLJ Crl 401
(d) Subburam v. State [Crl. A(MD) No.397 of 2019 dated 07.09.2022].
(e) Amar Singh and others v. State reported in 2020 (4) MLJ 344
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:
Pandi was examined as P.W.14 only for the purpose of speaking about the meeting called for compromise.
The discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 regarding the presence of accused persons in the police station and availability of M.O.1 to M.O.3 even before their arrest and recovery was due to lack of memory, since they were examined in chief on 01.11.2016, whereas they were cross-examined only on 02.07.2019.
The serology report marked as Ex.P10 through P.W.21 clearly tallies the clothes recovered from the accused with the blood group of the deceased.
The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, during the inquest, is very clear from Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 and hence, their statement that the dead bodies of the deceased were present in the hospital in the morning was clearly due to lack of memory and it will not affect their evidentiary value with regard to the description of the incident, which was done in a clear and cogent manner.
To substantiate this submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2022) Live law (SC) 596.
The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has not been discredited in the cross-examination and they have clearly described the incident and both their names were also found in the complaint and in the inquest report.
The delay in the express FIR reaching the Court has been properly explained by P.W.17 and hence, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. To substantiate this submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in Anilraj v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318.
The delay of 77 days in the statement recorded from the witnesses reaching the Court by itself will not result in throwing away the case of the prosecution and the inquest report had reached the Court on 07.11.2013 itself.
The motive to the crime has been clearly spoken by P.W.24, who had enquired the earlier complaint and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
10. In the present case, there was an earlier dispute between the accused persons and D1 and D2. The same has been clearly spoken to by PW-24, who had enquired the earlier complaint given against the accused persons. The motive for the crime as spoken to by the other witnesses has been corroborated by PW-24, who is an independent witness and who had no axe to grind against A1 to A3. It is true that motive may not be a relevant factor in a case involving eye witnesses. However, it can be taken to be one piece of evidence to connect the accused persons and the deceased to further develop the case of the prosecution.
11. Insofar as the incident is concerned, PW-1 and PW-2 have described the incident in a clear and cogent manner and the overt acts of each of the accused persons. The incident took place on 06.11.2013 at 9.15 a.m. and it was PW-1, who gave the complaint (Ex.P1) at about 9.45 a.m. Based on the same, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1105 of 2013. This document has been marked as Ex.P11 and the name of the accused persons and the deceased have been mentioned in the FIR. The names of PW-1 and PW-2 find place in the complaint. Even in the complaint, the entire facts have been properly explained and the overt acts have been described and the same was reiterated both by PW-1 and PW-2 in the witness box.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants questioned/doubted the very presence of PW-1 and PW-2 in the scene of occurrence. The main reason that was projected was that one Pandi had called the parties for mediation in the house of A3 and that is the reason why PW-1 and PW-2 followed the deceased persons in their two-wheeler. However, Pandi, who was examined as PW-14, does not even speak about any mediation initiated by the accused persons. Therefore, there was no occasion for PW-1 and PW-2 to follow the deceased persons in a two wheeler. That apart, the two-wheeler in which they travelled was not even marked as a material object.
13. A careful reading of the evidence of PW-14 shows that there is absolutely no reference to the mediation talks and this witness has been examined only as a hearsay witness, who came to know about the incident subsequently. The submission made in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellants carries some weightage.
14. PW-1 and PW-2 clearly pointed out the fact that the dead bodies of the deceased were available in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti at about 10 a.m. to 10.45 a.m. on 6.11.2013. This statement made by them runs contrary to the inquest report marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 prepared by the Investigating Officer. As per Ex.P16, the dead body of D1 was available when the report was prepared between 12 noon and 02.00 p.m. on 06.11.2013. Similarly, as per Ex.P17, the dead body of D2 was available in the scene of occurrence between 02:15 and 03:30 p.m. on 6.11.2013. It is only thereafter, PW-19 had taken the body of D2 for postmortem and handed over at around 03:45 p.m. and PW-19 had handed over the dead body of D1 at about 03.00 p.m. It is further seen from the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (PW-20) through whom Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 were marked that the postmortem was conducted for Murugan (D1) from 3.20 p.m. and for Balamurugan (D2) from 4.30 p.m. All the above evidence runs contrary to the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 on the availability of the dead bodies of the deceased between 10 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti on 6.11.2013.
15. PW-11 was a witness, who was examined by the prosecution to establish the motive behind the crime. This witness in his cross-examination states that he went to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti on 6.11.2013 at 11 p.m. and he found the dead bodies of D1 and D2. If the evidence of PW-11 is taken to be true, the evidence of PW-18 and PW-19 becomes questionable. The evidence of PW-11 is in line with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. This is yet another material discrepancy for which there is no explanation.
16. Both PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-3 also, clearly mention about the presence of the accused persons in the police station between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., on 06.11.2013. However, the accused persons were arrested and recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 was made only between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 06.11.2013, which was spoken by PW-15.
17. Insofar as the complaint (Ex.P1) is concerned, even though PW-2 is said to have accompanied PW-1, PW-2, in his evidence, clearly states that he had put his signature in Ex.P1 only at about 2 p.m., when he went to the police station and he was not even able to identify the signature of PW-1 in Ex.P1 and he feigned ignorance.
18. It is seen from the inquest report marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 that PW-1 and PW-2 were present and their names also finds place. If that is so, there is no explanation as to how PW-1 and PW-2 saw the dead body of the deceased persons between 10 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and as to how they saw the accused persons and M.O.1 to M.O.3 in the police station even before the completion of the inquest. These were the material discrepancies that were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to discredit and suspect the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who were examined as eye witnesses.
19. In the judgment that was relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Shahaja case referred supra, the Apex Court has evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case and for proper appreciation, Paragraph Nos. 27 and 28 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight- jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]
28. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.”
20. It is clear from the above judgment that there are two principle considerations that must be taken into account by the Court, while assessing the ocular evidence and they are:
Whether the circumstances of the case make the Court believe the presence of the eye witnesses in the scene of occurrence possible ? and
Whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence ?
The Apex Court has made it very clear that the discrepancies and trivial matters not touching upon the core of the case should not discredit the evidence of the eye witnesses.
21. When the above test is applied to the facts of the present case, the very presence of PW-1 and PW-2 in the scene of occurrence becomes doubtful. Just because they have described the overt acts of the accused persons, that by itself cannot clinch the evidence due to the surrounding circumstances, which stares at them. In the first place, they accompanied the deceased only based on the mediation talks initiated through Pandi. However, Pandi, who was examined as PW-14, does not speak about any mediation. Under such circumstances, the reason for PW-1 and PW-2 to accompany the deceased becomes questionable. PW-1 and PW-2 claim that they lifted the dead body of D1 and D2, which were soaked with blood and there were bloodstains in their apparel. It is not known as to why their apparel were not sent to obtain serology report and that would have clinched their presence in the scene of occurrence. PW-1 and PW-2 had travelled in a two-wheeler following the deceased and curiously, the two-wheeler in which they travelled was not even identified and marked as a material object. PW-2, who is said to have signed in the complaint (Ex.P1), admits that he countersigned only at 2 p.m. in the police station and he was not even able to recognise the signature of PW-1 in the complaint, if he had really accompanied PW-1 to the police station to give complaint at 9.45 am. on 6.11.2013. Their evidence about the presence of the dead body in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and the presence of the accused persons in the police station along with M.O.1 to M.O.3 runs completely contrary to the case of the prosecution. For all these reasons, the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 in the scene of occurrence and the subsequent events that had taken place makes their presence improbable and unreliable.
22. It is true that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out just because no independent witnesses have been examined. However, considering the fact that almost all the important witnesses in this case are relatives of the deceased and the evidence of the star witnesses becoming doubtful, the evidence of an independent witness would have brought more reliability to the case of the prosecution. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment of this Court in Viswanathan and Another, referred supra and the relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“18. Admittedly, P.W. 1 to 6 belong to Sunnambukarampatti, whereas, the occurrence had taken place in Pallakadu village. The presence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, at the place of occurrence, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellants is doubtful. In this argument, we find some force. In the absence of examination by (sic) independent and natural witness from that locality, in our considered opinion, the evidences of P.Ws. 1 to 6 cannot be acted upon, unless they inspire the confidence of the Court. We are not to say that P.W. 1 to 6 are to be disbelieved, simply, because they happened to be the close relatives. Because they happened to be the close relatives of the deceased and because their presence at the scene of occurrence is by chance and since they have not spoken as to what made them to be present at the crucial moment at the place of occurrence, we are to say that the presence of these witnesses is doubtful. Now, coming to occurrence place, it is not as though the occurrence had taken place where there is no chance for the presence of any independent witness. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at 8.30 a.m. and therefore, by all probabilities, there would have been a number of people present at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has not explained as to why no independent witness, more particularly, from Pallakadu village, has been examined. This creates further doubts in the case of the prosecution.
…
20. Now, coming to the lodging of the First Information Report, the alleged occurrence had taken place, according to the prosecution, at 8.30 p.m. It is their positive case that P.W. 1 proceeded to the police station and he made a complaint at 10.00 p.m. upon which, the present case was registered. But, according to the evidences of P.Ws. 1 to 5, immediately after the occurrence, within 15 minutes, on an information passed on to the police, over a cryptic telephonic message, the police reached the place and removed the dead body. This shows that the police had some other information before Exhibit P-1. Therefore, Exhibit P-1 can not be the First Information. Assuming that over a cryptic telephonic message, the police reached and removed the dead body within half an hour after occurrence, it goes without saying that the First Information Report would not have come into existence as alleged by the prosecution and it would have come into existence only after the arrival of the police at the spot. Had it been true that with a cryptic telephonic message, the police reached the place of occurrence within 15 minutes, nothing would have prevented the police from recording the truth and to have placed the same before the Court below. This also creates doubt as to whether the First Information Report would have come into existence as alleged by the prosecution.
21. Regarding the arrest and the consequential recovery of M.Os. 1 and 2, P.W. 6, the mother of the deceased, has categorically stated that on the next day of the occurrence at 10.00 a.m., she along with the other witnesses went to the police station, as they were asked to come and identify the weapons used in the crime. Accordingly, M.Os. 1 and 2 were identified by them at the police station. This would go to show that the accused would not have been arrested at the time and the place as has been projected by the prosecution and the weapons also would not have been recovered at the instance of the accused. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Above all, A. 2 is a woman. In our considered view, it is somewhat unbelievable that an aged woman, would have chased the deceased to such a long distance and stabbed him, that too, in a very busy locality.”
23. The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case, since the related witnesses were not helpful in substantiating the case of the prosecution. That apart, the very arrest and recovery from the accused persons becomes highly doubtful, since there is a direct contradiction between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 on the one hand and the evidence of PW-15 on the other.
24. The delay in the FIR reaching the Court has been properly explained by PW-17. However, there is admittedly a delay of 77 days in sending the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses to the Court and the Investigation Officer (PW-27) was not able to give any explanation for such an exorbitant delay. This Court in Subburam case (supra) dealt with the importance of sending the material documents to Court on time. For proper appreciation, Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“22. In a case of this nature, the delay in sending the material documents to the Court, has a lot of significance. A Division Bench of this Court in Re. Karunakaran and another, reported in 1975 (1) MLJ Crl 106 has categorically held that there are certain material documents which should be despatched immediately without any delay by the investigation officer to the Court. The Division Bench also indicated the procedure to be followed. Such immediate despatch of the material documents to the Court was insisted since it will provide a safeguard against the subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. While identifying the material documents, the complaint and the printed form of FIR have been shown to be material documents.
23. Another Division Bench in Sakthivel vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Papparapatty Police Station, Dharmapuri District reported in 2017 (4) MLJ Crl 715 took note of the above judgment and reiterated the importance of despatching material documents immediately to Court. It was held that even in a case whether the material documents are despatched belatedly, it is open to the investigating officer to explain the reasons for the same and it has to be elicited while examining the investigation officer. P.W-16, who was the Head Constable, who had taken the documents to the Court, was not able to really explain as to why there was a long delay in handing over the documents to the Court. The delay in despatching the documents to the Court will have significance since P.W-1 had contradicted himself with regard to the attack on the deceased person by stating that 2 male known persons attacked the deceased and later changing the version as if it was only the accused/appellant, who attacked the deceased. The delay that had occasioned in despatching the documents to the Court once again leads to subsequent deliberation and fixing the accused person.”
25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 77 days in sending the statement of the witnesses to the Court will have lot of significance in the present case, particularly when the statement of the eyewitnesses is said to have been recorded at the earliest point of time.
26. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a faint attempt to explain the discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the ground that they were examined in chief on 01.11.2016 and they were cross-examined only on 02.07.2019. It must be kept in mind that delay in cross- examination will have a bearing only in a case where the witnesses can be won over and can be made to speak against the evidence rendered during chief examination. In a case where the witnesses are related witnesses and they claim that they are perfectly aware about the facts of the case, delay in cross-examination by itself will not come to the aid of the witnesses to disregard material discrepancies in the evidence rendered by them. For proper appreciation, the judgment in Murugaiah case, (supra) can be taken into consideration and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“12. But, it is the specific contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the chief examination was conducted on 29.10.2015 and thereafter, after a lapse of one month, viz., on 01.12.2015, PW-1 was cross-examined and thus, PW-1 would have been won over by the other side. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes reliance on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dharmaraj v. The Inspector of Police, reported in 2015 (2) LW (Crl) 458, wherein it has been held that in a criminal proceedings, if a witness has been cross-examined after a long interval from the date of chief-examination, circumstances are available for the purpose of believing that he or she might have been won over by other side and such evidence can be disregarded/eschewed.
13. Though the above submission is attractive, it has no substance, since, in the above referred to case, the witness was a third party to the accused, whereas, in the case on hand, PW-1 is the father of the deceased and thus, the question of winning over by the other side does not arise at all. Therefore, the dictum laid down by the Division Bench is not applicable to the case on hand.”
27. This is a case involving double murder and the deceased persons have been hacked to death with multiple injuries in their vital organs and the same is evident from the postmortem certificates marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 and the cause of the death is shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by them. Unfortunately, this is yet another case, where the Investigation Officer has goofed up the case. A careful reference to the Rough Sketch (Ex.P13) shows that there are many houses in the scene of occurrence and the murder had taken place in front of the house of one Jeyaraj. It defies logic as to why not even a single independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The Investigation Officer, who was careful enough to send the clothes of the deceased to get the serology report, did not even bother to send the clothes of PW-1 and PW-2, which also contained bloodstains, according to them, since they claim to have lifted the bodies of the deceased. If their clothes had been sent and a serology report had been obtained, at least that would have sustained the case of the prosecution and lent support to the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 in the scene of occurrence.
28. This is a sample case, which highlights the predicament faced by the prosecution in proving heinous crimes. The non availability of independent witnesses or the hesitation shown by the general public to stand as a witness in a criminal case has been sufficiently lamented by the Apex Court and all High Courts in various judgments. The Witness Protection Law is yet to get into its shape. Similarly, the falsity uttered by the witnesses in the witness box and particularly when an independent witness is asked to depose in a criminal case, is not being able to be effectively handled and perjury as an offence only remains in the law book and it has never really acted as a deterring force to prevent witnesses uttering falsehood, when they are called as eyewitness in a criminal case.
29. With our experience in the Bench, we find that the prosecution always tries to safely bring in related witnesses to ensure that they support the case of the prosecution. In other words, many a times, related witnesses are swapped in the place of independent witnesses, who actually had seen the crime. The tutoring of a related witness, who has not seen a crime, at the best, can make him talk about the occurrence as projected by the prosecution including the overt acts attributed to each accused person. However, the risk is that they get caught very badly during cross-examination when unexpected questions are put by the counsel appearing for the defence, who is well-versed with the entire case. The answers given to such questions, expose the falsity of the so called eyewitnesses. Once the tutored related witnesses get exposed during the course of cross-examination, the statements made by them as if they saw the crime, becomes totally unacceptable and unreliable.
30. In the instant case, it was a gruesome double murder, which had happened in a place surrounded by a crowded residential area. Obviously, there are eyewitnesses to the crime and probably the prosecution did not want to take a chance. P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are close relatives of the deceased and who came to know about the incident subsequently, were swapped in the place of independent witnesses. Even though they spoke about the overt acts of the accused persons, exactly in the same manner, they got very badly exposed in the course of cross-examination and the same has been explained in detail, supra. As a result, their evidence as eyewitnesses becomes completely unreliable. As a consequence, the Court has to necessarily acquit the accused persons from all charges in a case involving a heinous crime. This trend seems to be continuing and that is the reason why the Courts have started wholly relying upon the statement of related witnesses in order to maintain a balance. That may not necessarily click in every case. For instance, it did not help the prosecution in the present case.
31. It is high time that the general public is given the confidence to stand as a witness in a criminal case by providing proper witness protection. An independent witness should not get the feeling that he will be facing hardships, if he stands as a witness in a case. Every citizen must understand that a grave situation like that can arise for their kith and kin and for their own family members and only then, they will realise that in spite of a gory incident, the same was not able to be proved, since the onlookers were not ready to stand as witness. It requires an attitudinal change and every citizen must realise that he will also face a similar situation at some point in time in his life. Hence, the hesitation to stand as an independent witness must be shed and a citizen must take more responsibility to uphold the rule of law. The criminal justice system depends upon fair trial and the independent witnesses willing to come to Court to give evidence. In the absence of the same, the criminal justice system will collapse and it will only lead to anarchy. The police and the Courts must keep this in mind and build confidence in the minds of the general public that they will not be harassed or tormented if they stand as a witness in a criminal case.
32. In the present case, with the available evidence, it becomes almost impossible for this Court to hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. This Court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused persons from all charges.
33. In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, made in S.C.No.369 of 2015, dated 13.9.2019 are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appellant in Crl.A(MD) No.349/2021 is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond shall stand terminated, insofar as the appellants/A2 and A3 are concerned.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
28.09.2022
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tuticorin.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
RR
Judgment made in
Crl. A. (MD)Nos.493, 619 of 2019 and 349 of 2021
28.09.2022
[9/28, 13:22] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 13:21] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/kjilOBqwigc
[9/28, 13:21] Sekarreporter1: RSS case writ appeal வருமா வராதா acj bench hearing
[9/28, 13:51] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 13:49] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575037355907772417?t=9yp5IPCh9bbhfH35Wb6Fpw&s=08
[9/28, 13:50] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 13:47] Sekarreporter1: RSS route March
VCK Can’t file WA here : ACJ DKKJ
Akredy Sc and HC DB orders are there : Judges said
[9/28, 13:47] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/28, 15:22] Sekarreporter1: https://youtube.com/shorts/BCZH0RoOCpg?feature=share
[9/28, 15:22] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575059925201735680?t=1MW6hapzNrC0JoUX4ZuKRg&s=08
[9/28, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 14:58] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/XbDUTyLeBi0
[9/28, 14:59] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/fqBjbLlcuJg
[9/28, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Vy3bQyC1MAA
[9/28, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/lvdiT4vd1NY
[9/28, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/4TOqokTXb2s
[9/28, 15:29] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 15:27] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575062027282030593?t=vXeBlWUwAWVX6E7cAvSRJw&s=08
[9/28, 15:27] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 14:58] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/XbDUTyLeBi0
[9/28, 14:59] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/fqBjbLlcuJg
[9/28, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Vy3bQyC1MAA
[9/28, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/lvdiT4vd1NY
[9/28, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/4TOqokTXb2s
[9/28, 15:35] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 15:34] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575063717209067520?t=M4oJlpClBeKS8kAVhlWxhg&s=08
[9/28, 15:34] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 15:32] Sekarreporter1: Corriderல் உட்காராதீர்கள் கோர்ட்டில் உட்காருங்கள் வெற்றி ரகசியம்
[9/28, 15:33] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/XbDUTyLeBi0 NDPS கோர்ட் ஜாம்பாவான் mhaa speech
[9/28, 15:40] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 15:38] Sekarreporter1: RSS contempt notice to police issue by Rabu manogar Advt
[9/28, 15:39] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/28, 16:36] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 16:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575079129904336897?t=gjdIgWk5rSxmlWT-lB-gkg&s=08
[9/28, 16:35] Sekarreporter1: Crl.O.P.No.22678 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 308 of IPC r/w 128, 177, 184, 188 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in Crime No.215 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant one
Gajendran, the Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Police Station, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai, is that on 09.09.2022, while he was on duty, he received a video message through whatsapp in his mobile phone showing that on 08.09.2022 at midnight, 4 persons along with pillion riders totaling 8 persons have driven their motorcycles recklessly in a zig zag manner in Anna Salai, creating loud noise, causing panic and hazard to the other vehicle users and pedestrians and thereby, endangering their safety resulting in the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is a youngster, aged about 22 years, hailing from the respectable family. He would further submit that the petitioner is a motorcycle enthusiast and a B.Tech drop out. He would also submit that the petitioner due to his youthful enthusiasm, used his motorcycle skills for a wrong purpose and thereby, he got into conflict with law. He would further submit that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to attempt to commit culpable homicide and that other than the offence under Section 308 IPC, the other offences under the Motor Vehicles Act are bailable in nature. He would also submit that if the petitioner is arrested, his career and future would be at jeopardy. He would also submit that there is no bad antecedent against the petitioner and that some of the arrested accused have been released on bail by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.17544, 17568 and 17569 of 2022 on 19.08.2022 with
conditions. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
petitioner, who is an active person in Instagram with more than forty thousand followers, had driven the motorcycles along with the other accused in a reckless manner and by doing stunt and wheeling in the main Anna Salai, they have instilled fear in the minds of other drivers and pedestrians in the road and thereby, they created lawlessness in the society.
He would also submit that they have driven the vehicle with a knowledge that their acts will cause endanger to the life of the pedestrians and codrivers on the same road. He would reiterate that the petitioners have come all the way from Hyderabad to perform the illegal acts and thereby, caused infraction to public order. He would also submit that the video footage of the petitioner doing wheeling with the motorcycle has been uploaded in the social media and it is doing rounds on social media and he has set a bad example to the youngsters and hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there is no complaint from any individual and no body has been injured and even as per the prosecution, the entire alleged act of the petitioner is stated to have been uploaded in the social media and also recorded in the CCTV camera installed along the road and the entire CCTV footages are also available. He would further submit that in such circumstances, there is no requirement for the petitioner for custodial interrogation and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court. Thereby, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record including the video uploaded in the social media.
7. This is the case where a young motorcycle enthusiast, who is
also an active person in Instagram, hailing from the respectable family, had driven the vehicle in a reckless manner, causing fear and panic to the other drivers and pedestrians travelling on the same road and fortunately, no one has been injured. The petitioner is an youngster active in social media with huge followers, instead of being role model to youngsters, he is alleged to have set a bad example by driving the vehicle in a reckless manner on the main road, instilling fear in the minds of the pedestrians. However, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and that if the petitioner is arrested and sent to jail, it would affect his future /career and further, the entire episode is available in CCTV footage, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is not required and anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions that would in a way reform him.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and submissions of the case and taking note of the fact that some of the co-accused have been arrested and granted with bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which one shall be either the father or mother of the petitioner), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall stay at Chennai and report before the respondent Police, everyday at 5.00 p.m., for a period of three weeks;
[c] the petitioner shall stay at Chennai and report before the Duty Doctor, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai in Trauma Ward, from Tuesday to Saturday at 8.00 a.m and stay in Trauma Ward till 12.00 noon and assist the Ward Boys to take care of the patients at Trauma Ward for a period of 3 weeks from the date of execution of sureties. He shall also submit one page report daily about his experience in the Trauma Ward to the Duty Doctor and thereafter, the Dean shall forward the reports submitted by him at the end of three weeks to this Court;
[d] the petitioner shall upload a video in his Instagram account against reckless driving, drunken driving and insisting of wearing helmets and seat belts during driving;
[e] the petitioner shall file an Affidavit that he will not indulge in reckless driving, causing panic and hazard to the other drivers and pedestrians on the road;
[f] the petitioner shall be present at TeynampetMount Road Junction signal every Monday for a period of three weeks between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and distribute the pamphlets containing awareness messages against reckless driving, drunken driving and insisting for wearing helmets and seat belts during driving. The cost for printing the pamphlets shall borne by the petitioner;
[g] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[h] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[i] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[j] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
10. Post the matter for reporting compliance on 04.11.2022.
21.09.2022
vkr/ham
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vkr/ham Crl.OP.No.22678 of 2022
21.09.2022
[9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575118980607397888?t=GYHFLgyQrXXLNx6ntTn6vQ&s=08
[9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:11] Sekarreporter1: : Hi sir, the petitioner only argued that a 2020 notification issued by the union government had defined educational institutions as any institute that promoted one’s physical and mental development, built character etc. So a yoga institute will be considered as an educational institute and be exempted from seeking prior environmental clearance
[9/28, 19:09] HC will hear it further on Friday
[9/28, 19:11] Sekarreporter1: ……
[9/28, 19:22] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/NGOSB18FCco
[9/28, 19:31] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:24] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575121779890130944?t=sZ1Zw5S4MjLpCv_lQsdrQw&s=08
[9/28, 19:24] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:23] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:22] Subramani Adythiyan Senior Advocate Thoothukudi: 279&308 IPC
Excellent judgement by Hon Justice A D Jagathish chandira
[9/28, 19:23] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/28, 19:24] Subramani Adythiyan Senior Advocate Thoothukudi: Excellent AB order
[9/28, 19:55] Sekarreporter1: Bike race case ab Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575079129904336897?t=gjdIgWk5rSxmlWT-lB-gkg&s=08 [9/28, 16:35] Sekarreporter1: Crl.O.P.No.22678 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 308 of IPC r/w 128, 177, 184, 188 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in Crime No.215 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant one https://sekarreporter.com/bike-race-case-ab-sekarreporter1-https-twitter-com-sekarreporter1-status-1575079129904336897tgjdigwk5rsxmlwt-lb-gkgs08-9-28-1635-sekarreporter1-crl-o-p-no-22678-of-2022-a-d-jagadish-chan/
[9/28, 20:40] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575118980607397888?t=GYHFLgyQrXXLNx6ntTn6vQ&s=08
[9/28, 20:37] Sekarreporter1: As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-isha-foundation-argues-that-it-comes-within-the-purview-of-educational-institution-210512
[9/28, 20:42] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 20:39] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575118980607397888?t=GYHFLgyQrXXLNx6ntTn6vQ&s=08
[9/28, 20:37] Sekarreporter1: As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-isha-foundation-argues-that-it-comes-within-the-purview-of-educational-institution-210512
[9/28, 20:42] Sekarreporter1: Live LawLive Law
LOGINSUBSCRIBE
Search…
Home/News Updates/As Yoga Institute…
NEWS UPDATES
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
Upasana Sajeev
28 Sep 2022 2:54 PM GMT
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
‘Sadhguru’ Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that it was exempted from seeking prior Environmental Clearance as it came within the purview of Educational Institutions.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar was hearing the plea filed by the Foundation challenging a notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Government initiating prosecution against the foundation for carrying out construction work between 2006-2014 at Coimbatore, without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance as per the Central Government’s Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
In the previous hearing, the Central Government had informed the court that the Foundation was exempted from clearance as it was engaged in promoting education, and vide a clarification issued by the Central Government in 2014, all educational institutions, industrial sheds and hostels were exempted from getting mandatory environmental clearance before commencing construction work. The court had then specifically asked how the Foundation would fall within the exempted category.
When the matter came up for hearing, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the foundation, submitted that in May 2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climat Change had issued an Office Memorandum wherein they had issued clarifications on the applicability of EIA Notification 2006 for Educational Institutions.
As per this Office Memorandum, the meaning of Educational Institutions was taken to mean the same as was stated in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000. The same defined educational institution as under:
“educational institution” means a school, seminary, college, university, professional academies, training institutes or other educational establishment, not necessarily a chartered institution and includes not only buildings, but also all grounds necessary for the accomplishment of the full scope of educational instruction, including those things essential to mental, moral and physical development;
Thus, the petitioner institution claimed that since it was a “Yoga Institute” which worked for the model development of persons, it came within the purview of educational institution and was exempted from seeking mandatory clearance before construction.
Due to paucity of time, the matter has been adjourned to September 30.
Case Title: Isha Foundation v. Union of India
Case No: WP No. 467 of 2022
TAGSMADRAS HIGH COURT ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T RAJA JUSTICE D KRISHNAKUMAR ISHA FOUNDATION ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (EC)
SIMILAR POSTS
+ VIEW MORE
LAW FIRMS
+ MORE
DRT Allows Auctions Of Properties Mortgaged To The Lender, Even If The Same Was Purportedly Sold By Borrower To Third Parties.
DRT Allows Auctions Of Properties Mortgaged To The Lender, Even If The Same Was Purportedly Sold By Borrower To Third Parties.
LATEST NEWS
+ MORE
1
‘Was Absconding For 12 Years’: Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To 70-Yr-Old In Minor’s Rape Case
2
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
3
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging TN Govt’s 50% Quota For In-Service Candidates
4
Gyanvapi ASI Survey Stay | “Matter Of National Importance”: Allahabad High Court Seeks ASI DG’s Personal Affidavit By Oct 18
5
Can Section 319 CrPC Be Invoked After Trial Is Over? Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Nov 15
6
‘CBI Has Filed A Piece Meal Chargesheet, Only Concluded Part Investigation’: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna, Anand Subramanian
7
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Debar Persons Against Whom Charges Have Been Framed In Serious Offences From Elections
8
Acquittal Finding Can’t Be Converted Into One Of Conviction In Exercise Of HC’s Revisional Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court
लाइव लॉ हिंदी
+ MORE
INTERNATIONAL
+ MORE
1
Indian-American Attorney Arun Subramanian Nominated As US District Judge In New York By President Joe Biden
2
Ketanji Brown Jackson Sworn In As US Supreme Court Justice- First Black Woman In Court’s History
3
U S Supreme Court: Derecognition Of The Constitutional Right To Abortion Is Feudalistic
4
“Curtails Women’s Status As Free & Equal Citizens” : SCOTUS Liberal Judges Dissent “With Sorrow” From Majority Decision Nullifying Abortion Rights
ENVIRONMENT
+ MORE
1
Grant Of Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Permissible In Exceptional Circumstances : Surpeme Court
2
NGT Orders Removal Of Temple Structure From Govt Land Meant For ‘Open Space’
3
Supreme Court Explains Meaning Of “Forests”; Holds Non-Forest Activities Cannot Be Permitted Without Prior Approval From Central Govt
4
Maradu Flat Demolitions : Ex-Judge’s Enquiry Holds Kerala Govt & Local Authorities Liable Besides Builders For Illegal Constructions
JOB UPDATES
1. Member (Judicial) Vacancy At The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
2. Administrative Officer Vacancy At Government Of Maharashtra
3. Prosecutor Vacancy At Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
4. Member Vacancy AT Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru
5. Consultant Vacancy At International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA)
+ VIEW MORE
Top Stories
News Update
Columns
Interviews
International
Rti Updates
Know the Law
Law Firms
Job Updates
Book Reviews
Events Corner
Cover Story
Editor’s Pick
Law School Corner
Articles
Call for Papers
Competitions
Internships
Placements
Scholarships
Seminars
Environment
Book Reviews
2022 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLawPowered By Hocalwire
Who We AreCareersAdvertise With UsContact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms And Conditions
Live Law subscriptions starting
₹ 899 +GST
X
[9/28, 20:44] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 20:39] Sekarreporter1: [9/28, 19:14] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575118980607397888?t=GYHFLgyQrXXLNx6ntTn6vQ&s=08
[9/28, 20:37] Sekarreporter1: As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-isha-foundation-argues-that-it-comes-within-the-purview-of-educational-institution-210512
[9/28, 20:42] Sekarreporter1: Live LawLive Law
LOGINSUBSCRIBE
Search…
Home/News Updates/As Yoga Institute…
NEWS UPDATES
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
Upasana Sajeev
28 Sep 2022 2:54 PM GMT
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
‘Sadhguru’ Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that it was exempted from seeking prior Environmental Clearance as it came within the purview of Educational Institutions.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar was hearing the plea filed by the Foundation challenging a notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Government initiating prosecution against the foundation for carrying out construction work between 2006-2014 at Coimbatore, without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance as per the Central Government’s Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
In the previous hearing, the Central Government had informed the court that the Foundation was exempted from clearance as it was engaged in promoting education, and vide a clarification issued by the Central Government in 2014, all educational institutions, industrial sheds and hostels were exempted from getting mandatory environmental clearance before commencing construction work. The court had then specifically asked how the Foundation would fall within the exempted category.
When the matter came up for hearing, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the foundation, submitted that in May 2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climat Change had issued an Office Memorandum wherein they had issued clarifications on the applicability of EIA Notification 2006 for Educational Institutions.
As per this Office Memorandum, the meaning of Educational Institutions was taken to mean the same as was stated in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000. The same defined educational institution as under:
“educational institution” means a school, seminary, college, university, professional academies, training institutes or other educational establishment, not necessarily a chartered institution and includes not only buildings, but also all grounds necessary for the accomplishment of the full scope of educational instruction, including those things essential to mental, moral and physical development;
Thus, the petitioner institution claimed that since it was a “Yoga Institute” which worked for the model development of persons, it came within the purview of educational institution and was exempted from seeking mandatory clearance before construction.
Due to paucity of time, the matter has been adjourned to September 30.
Case Title: Isha Foundation v. Union of India
Case No: WP No. 467 of 2022
TAGSMADRAS HIGH COURT ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T RAJA JUSTICE D KRISHNAKUMAR ISHA FOUNDATION ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (EC)
SIMILAR POSTS
+ VIEW MORE
LAW FIRMS
+ MORE
DRT Allows Auctions Of Properties Mortgaged To The Lender, Even If The Same Was Purportedly Sold By Borrower To Third Parties.
DRT Allows Auctions Of Properties Mortgaged To The Lender, Even If The Same Was Purportedly Sold By Borrower To Third Parties.
LATEST NEWS
+ MORE
1
‘Was Absconding For 12 Years’: Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To 70-Yr-Old In Minor’s Rape Case
2
As Yoga Institute Exempted From Seeking Prior Environmental Clearance For Constructions: Isha Foundation to Madras High Court
3
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging TN Govt’s 50% Quota For In-Service Candidates
4
Gyanvapi ASI Survey Stay | “Matter Of National Importance”: Allahabad High Court Seeks ASI DG’s Personal Affidavit By Oct 18
5
Can Section 319 CrPC Be Invoked After Trial Is Over? Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Nov 15
6
‘CBI Has Filed A Piece Meal Chargesheet, Only Concluded Part Investigation’: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna, Anand Subramanian
7
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Debar Persons Against Whom Charges Have Been Framed In Serious Offences From Elections
8
Acquittal Finding Can’t Be Converted Into One Of Conviction In Exercise Of HC’s Revisional Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court
लाइव लॉ हिंदी
+ MORE
INTERNATIONAL
+ MORE
1
Indian-American Attorney Arun Subramanian Nominated As US District Judge In New York By President Joe Biden
2
Ketanji Brown Jackson Sworn In As US Supreme Court Justice- First Black Woman In Court’s History
3
U S Supreme Court: Derecognition Of The Constitutional Right To Abortion Is Feudalistic
4
“Curtails Women’s Status As Free & Equal Citizens” : SCOTUS Liberal Judges Dissent “With Sorrow” From Majority Decision Nullifying Abortion Rights
ENVIRONMENT
+ MORE
1
Grant Of Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Permissible In Exceptional Circumstances : Surpeme Court
2
NGT Orders Removal Of Temple Structure From Govt Land Meant For ‘Open Space’
3
Supreme Court Explains Meaning Of “Forests”; Holds Non-Forest Activities Cannot Be Permitted Without Prior Approval From Central Govt
4
Maradu Flat Demolitions : Ex-Judge’s Enquiry Holds Kerala Govt & Local Authorities Liable Besides Builders For Illegal Constructions
JOB UPDATES
1. Member (Judicial) Vacancy At The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
2. Administrative Officer Vacancy At Government Of Maharashtra
3. Prosecutor Vacancy At Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
4. Member Vacancy AT Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru
5. Consultant Vacancy At International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA)
+ VIEW MORE
Top Stories
News Update
Columns
Interviews
International
Rti Updates
Know the Law
Law Firms
Job Updates
Book Reviews
Events Corner
Cover Story
Editor’s Pick
Law School Corner
Articles
Call for Papers
Competitions
Internships
Placements
Scholarships
Seminars
Environment
Book Reviews
2022 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLawPowered By Hocalwire
Who We AreCareersAdvertise With UsContact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms And Conditions
Live Law subscriptions starting
₹ 899 +GST
X
[9/29, 07:11] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 07:10] Sekarreporter1: Madas high court sep 28th order judge durai samy took new post tribunal https://sekarreporter.com/madas-high-court-sep-28th-order-judge-durai-samy-took-new-post-tribunal/
[9/29, 07:11] Sekarreporter1: Former acj Duraisamy congrats sir
[9/29, 11:25] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/uY_dac8Bj2g
[9/29, 11:27] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/18RFrIk-7O8
[9/29, 11:28] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/18RFrIk-7O8
[9/29, 11:43] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 11:18] K balu: உலக இதய தினத்தை முன்னிட்டு நீதியரசர் சுரேஷ்குமார் அவர்கள் தமிழ்நாடு புதுச்சேரி பார் கவுன்சிலில் இன்று மருத்துவ முகாமை தொடங்கி வைத்து சிறப்புரையாற்றினார்
இந்த வாய்ப்பை உயர் நீதிமன்ற வழக்கறிஞர்கள் பயன்படுத்திக் கொண்டு இதய பரிசோதனை செய்து கொள்ள வருமாறு அன்புடன் அழைக்கின்றோம்
[9/29, 11:32] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/29, 11:47] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575368554274492416?t=jYMFX0IpCBCUNwjSWpbcvQ&s=08
[9/29, 12:36] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 12:35] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575354051365306369?t=hHZTqmtBPhOr8eUboTT3Vg&s=08
[9/29, 12:35] Sekarreporter1: Chief Justice S. Muralidhar of Orissa High Court is expected to be made Chief Justice of Madras High Court @THChennai
[9/29, 15:16] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 15:15] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575420892368482304?t=NB7jlmJ7OyIvcp_Qs8vI6A&s=08
[9/29, 15:15] Sekarreporter1: Prisillapandian: Today Madurai Highcourt women lawyers conducted the Pooja and our Hon’ble justice Nisha Banu, Hon’ble Justice Bhavani Suburayan, Hon’ble justice Shreemathi attend the Pooja and graced the occasion .I was happy to be invited and to attend the function
[9/29, 15:38] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 15:37] Sekarreporter1: MADRAS HIGH COURT GRANTS RELIEF FOR MANI RATNAM’S MAGNUM OPUS FILM PONNIYIN SELVAN
Today Madras High Court granted an order blocking of 2405 piracy websites from illegally broadcasting the film PONNIYIN SELVAN
Vijayan Subramanian @lawyervijayan appeared for Lyca Productions.
[9/29, 15:37] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/29, 15:49] Sekarreporter1: [9/29, 15:42] Sekarreporter1: Senthil balaji case 18 the adj judge sivananam
[9/29, 15:43] Sekarreporter1: ..add pp raj thilak filed vacate stay petition
[9/29, 19:23] Sekarreporter1: MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY O.S.A.No.230 of 2022. Child custody case single judge observation setaside https://sekarreporter.com/mr-justice-paresh-upadhyay-and-the-honble-mr-justice-d-bharatha-chakravarthy-o-s-a-no-230-of-2022-child-custody-case-single-judge-observation-setaside/
[9/29, 20:48] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/29/watch-judge-r-sures-kumar-excellant-speech-in-namakal-kambam-kalagam-on-youtube/
[9/30, 06:41] Sekarreporter1: Madras high court orders sep 29 https://sekarreporter.com/madras-high-court-orders-sep-29-2/
[9/30, 06:41] Sekarreporter1: Smsj urgent letter to RG https://sekarreporter.com/smsj-urgent-letter-to-rg/
[9/30, 08:51] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 08:49] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575686670477045761?t=-Y3r0cbyaOYdjloTnQ-11A&s=08
[9/30, 08:50] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 08:24] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/2ewJTd1J444 judge R mahadevan excellent speech in mmba madurai
[9/30, 08:24] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[9/30, 10:55] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 10:54] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575717904468692992?t=5xneGiNCOqn-QvpxcRTsBg&s=08
[9/30, 10:54] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 10:52] Sekarreporter1: முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் ஜெயக்குமார் மீதான நில அபகரிப்பு வழக்கை ரத்து செய்தது சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம்….
[9/30, 10:52] Sekarreporter1: Former Minister D.Jayakumar FIR quash is allowed by Hon’ble Justice G K ilantharaiyan today. Mr.A.Natarajan senior advocate and Former State PP appeared for Former Minister D .Jayakumar.
[9/30, 11:51] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 11:37] Sekarreporter1: திருமாவளவன் சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தான் போக வேண்டும் இங்கு வரக்கூடாது
[9/30, 11:49] Sekarreporter1: Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of Madras HC reserves orders on a petition filed by Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) leader Thol Thirumavalavan to recall a Sep 22 order granting permission for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) route march across TN on Oct 2
[9/30, 12:40] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:38] Sekarreporter1: அதிமுக பொது குழுவிற்கு எதிரான ஒபிஎஸ் மனு: உத்தரவு: எடப்பாடிக்கு தரப்பு உச்சநீதிமன்றம் நோட்டீஸ்
[9/30, 12:38] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/30, 12:43] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:38] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/30, 12:42] Sekarreporter1: அதிமுக பொதுச் செயலாளர் தேர்தல் நடத்த உச்சநீதிமன்றம் தடை
ஜூலை 11 பொதுக்குழு செல்லும் என ஓ.பி.எஸ் தொடர்ந்த மேல்முறையீட்டு மனு மீதான விசாரணையில் உத்தரவு
[9/30, 12:48] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:48] Sekarreporter1: : ஓபிஎஸ் மேல்முறையீடு மனுவை விசாரித்து தீர்ப்பு அளிக்கும்வரை பொதுச்செயலாளருக்கான தேர்தல் நடைபெறாது
உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் எடப்பாடி பழனிசாமி உறுதி
[9/30, 12:48] Sekarreporter1: .
[9/30, 12:53] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:52] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575747049190227969?s=08
[9/30, 12:52] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575747049190227969?t=Dq1kbWfDzAhAx01j_cscfg&s=08
[9/30, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: Judge says officer can take a private cameraman with him but it may not be right to take television crews along with him to the kitchen even before food samples are taken and tested to prove culpability.
[9/30, 12:50] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 12:41] Sekarreporter1: An association of hotels & restaurants in Chennai has approached Madras HC claiming that a designated officer, under Food Safety & Standards Act, has no authority to go into kitchens with television crew for inspection. Says, the officer in Chennai is a publicity freak @THChennai
[9/30, 12:41] Sekarreporter1: Senior Counsel PS Raman, representing the association, says the officer can inspect any restaurant without calling the media in advance. Judge says, the request appears to be reasonable.
[9/30, 12:46] Sekarreporter1: Judge says officer can take a private cameraman with him but it may not be right to take television crews along with him to the kitchen even before food samples are taken and tested to prove culpability. Judge Rskj
[9/30, 13:10] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 13:09] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575751529637679105?s=08
[9/30, 13:09] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 13:06] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Bn3J-cC310Y NGR prasath interview RSS case
[9/30, 13:06] Sekarreporter1: ..
[9/30, 13:10] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 13:07] Sekarreporter1: Justice R Suresh Kumar: When FSSA Act was in nascent stage, I was the first standing counsel for food safety authorities. Then, I told a judge, if the provisions of the Act have to be strictly implemented, then most of the Aavin parlours in Tamil Nadu will have to be closed down.
[9/30, 13:08] Sekarreporter1: Judge: If you ask the officials for data with respect to the number of inspections carried out and the number of the cases which were prosecuted successfully, it will prove that the success rate is very poor.
[9/30, 14:54] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 14:51] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575777751193522176?t=dM0x1_OXTFMd9wTmgYlNAg&s=08
[9/30, 14:52] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 14:47] Sekarreporter1: #RSS rally: Madras HC commences hearing of contempt plea moved by RSS against TN home secretary and DGP for failing to grant permission for rally on Oct 2 as directed by the court @timesofindia
[9/30, 14:49] Sekarreporter1: Senior advt S Parabakaran representing RSS: While the court has specifically directed the authorities to grant permission on or before September 28, they have denied permission which is clear violation of the order
[9/30, 14:49] Sekarreporter1: Prabakaran: Nobody can undermine the judiciary. The actions of the authorities in denying permission for the rally in violation of court order is nothing but mockery of judiciary #RSS
[9/30, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575781427756826624?t=0HgAownMeQms3zu0z55N9g&s=08
[9/30, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/ovckfJ14Ncsmhaa Acting chief justice excellant speech வக்கீல்கள் வெற்றி பெற 3 முக்கிய தேவை
[9/30, 15:10] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575781427756826624?t=0HgAownMeQms3zu0z55N9g&s=08
[9/30, 15:09] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/ovckfJ14Ncsmhaa Acting chief justice excellant speech வக்கீல்கள் வெற்றி பெற 3 முக்கிய தேவை
[9/30, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:18] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575784594317901824?t=5uLAYdf-rJnLWpwDu0Tfxg&s=08
[9/30, 15:19] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 14:47] Sekarreporter1: #RSS rally: Madras HC commences hearing of contempt plea moved by RSS against TN home secretary and DGP for failing to grant permission for rally on Oct 2 as directed by the court @timesofindia
[9/30, 14:49] Sekarreporter1: Senior advt S Parabakaran representing RSS: While the court has specifically directed the authorities to grant permission on or before September 28, they have denied permission which is clear violation of the order
[9/30, 14:49] Sekarreporter1: Prabakaran: Nobody can undermine the judiciary. The actions of the authorities in denying permission for the rally in violation of court order is nothing but mockery of judiciary #RSS
[9/30, 14:52] Sekarreporter1: GR says Supreme Court had clearly held that law and order cannot be cited as a reason to reject permission and that it is the duty of the police to maintain L&O. He says permission has been granted even in Kerala.
[9/30, 14:56] Sekarreporter1: Now, Senior Counsel NL Rajah, also for RSS functionaries, questions how can a march to celebrate the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi be not allowed in Tamil Nadu alone.
[9/30, 14:56] Sekarreporter1: Senior Counsel N.R. Elango is arguing for the police now.
[9/30, 14:58] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango says truth is a valid defence in any contempt of court proceedings.
Judge says he had issued a positive direction to the police to permit the march and not just consider the request for permission.
[9/30, 15:11] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango denies the allegation that police are preventing RSS from celebrating Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. He says police has objection for conduct of the march only on October 2 and that they are willing to consider granting permission on any other day.
[9/30, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah says 52,000 police personnel are on the roads after September 22 to protect the life and liberty of the citizens due to issues such as NIA raids and the petrol bomb attacks.
[9/30, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango reads out an order passed by Tiruvallur Inspector of Police rejecting the permission. Points out that police had cited NIA raids in Popular Front of India establishments &petrol bomb attacks on BJP &RSS functionaries in many places as a reason for rejecting permission.
[9/30, 15:13] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango says the central intelligence agencies itself had given inputs to the State regarding possible disturbance to law and order due to the action taken against PFI.
[9/30, 15:14] Sekarreporter1: Reads out a legal maxim which means ‘safety of the people is the supreme law.’
[9/30, 15:14] Sekarreporter1: He is now reading out a Supreme Court order which states that courts should not interfere into law and order issues. He says, police filed review petitions on September 27 itself. Says, so far TN Govt has received seven intelligence reports regarding possible L&O problem.
[9/30, 15:15] Sekarreporter1: Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan suggests RSS to come up with another date for the rally since the state is apprehending law and order problem particularly on October 2 #RSS
[9/30, 15:15] Sekarreporter1: Justice Ilanthiraiyan: I have also seen in news the ground situation and the threat faced even by RSS functionaries in view of #PFIBan .
[9/30, 15:16] Sekarreporter1: Justice Ilanthiraiyan suggests RSS to organise the rally on November 6 instead of October 2
[9/30, 15:16] Sekarreporter1: RSS gives four alternative dates for the march. Judge says he can keep the contempt petition pending and direct the police to grant permission for an alternative date.
[9/30, 15:17] Sekarreporter1: Judge says march can be taken out on November 6.
[9/30, 15:22] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:22] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575785471288172544?t=YtmrdeY7E1RiDshdqNyV6A&s=08
[9/30, 15:22] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:20] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY*
Inviting you to *OFFLINE / ONLINE coaching* for
*JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE/ MUNSIF*
*Subject: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908*
_(Continuation)_
*Date : 1 .10. 2022*
*Timing*: 10:45 am to 1:00 pm
*CONTACT NO : 7339650446*
[9/30, 15:21] Sekarreporter1: Ok
[9/30, 15:39] Sekarreporter1: Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575784594317901824?t=5uLAYdf-rJnLWpwDu0Tfxg&s=08 [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: Adjourns contempt petition to Oct 31. Says, police shall permit march on Nov 6, otherwise he will proceed with contempt. [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: Reads out a legal maxim which means ‘safety of the people is the supreme law.’ [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: He is now reading out a Supreme Court order which states that courts should not interfere into law and order issues. He says, police filed review petitions on September 27 itself. Says, so far TN Govt has received seven intelligence reports regarding possible L&O problem. https://sekarreporter.com/sekarreporter1-https-twitter-com-sekarreporter1-status-1575784594317901824t5ulaydf-rjnlwpwdu0tfxgs08-9-30-1531-sekarreporter1-adjourns-contempt-petition-to-oct-31-says-police-shall-permi/
[9/30, 15:43] Sekarreporter1: Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575784594317901824?t=5uLAYdf-rJnLWpwDu0Tfxg&s=08 [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: Adjourns contempt petition to Oct 31. Says, police shall permit march on Nov 6, otherwise he will proceed with contempt. [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: Reads out a legal maxim which means ‘safety of the people is the supreme law.’ [9/30, 15:31] Sekarreporter1: He is now reading out a Supreme Court order which states that courts should not interfere into law and order issues. He says, police filed review petitions on September 27 itself. Says, so far TN Govt has received seven intelligence reports regarding possible L&O problem. https://sekarreporter.com/sekarreporter1-https-twitter-com-sekarreporter1-status-1575784594317901824t5ulaydf-rjnlwpwdu0tfxgs08-9-30-1531-sekarreporter1-adjourns-contempt-petition-to-oct-31-says-police-shall-permi/
[9/30, 16:00] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:57] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575793963134750720?t=N5cTzbjzTRGr9BFPJhZvHw&s=08
[9/30, 15:58] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 15:11] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango denies the allegation that police are preventing RSS from celebrating Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. He says police has objection for conduct of the march only on October 2 and that they are willing to consider granting permission on any other day.
[9/30, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah says 52,000 police personnel are on the roads after September 22 to protect the life and liberty of the citizens due to issues such as NIA raids and the petrol bomb attacks.
[9/30, 15:12] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango reads out an order passed by Tiruvallur Inspector of Police rejecting the permission. Points out that police had cited NIA raids in Popular Front of India establishments &petrol bomb attacks on BJP &RSS functionaries in many places as a reason for rejecting permission.
[9/30, 15:13] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango says the central intelligence agencies itself had given inputs to the State regarding possible disturbance to law and order due to the action taken against PFI.
[9/30, 15:28] Sekarreporter1: Mr. Elango says L&O situation differs from State to State.
[9/30, 16:09] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 16:08] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575797157013045249?t=FdPyhH6WqU4gDalIYj-rxg&s=08
[9/30, 16:08] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 16:07] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/xy4scphkRW8
[9/30, 16:07] Sekarreporter1: Rss case adv Rabu manogar interview case adj oct 31 march nov 6
[9/30, 17:16] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 17:03] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 17:00] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575809609373478913?t=Kjf71MrwLR_1a8sxZNMQmA&s=08
[9/30, 17:00] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 16:52] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/HCftIBnaqOE டாஸ் மாக் பேட்டி
[9/30, 16:52] Sekarreporter1: டாஸ்மாக் டெண்டர் ஐகோர்ட் ரத்து வக்கீல் மேட்டி
[9/30, 17:14] Sekarreporter1: Judge anitha sumanth
[9/30, 17:15] Sekarreporter1: Senior adv singaravelan , chithra sambath
[9/30, 20:17] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 20:16] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/30/w-p-no-26652-of-2022-r-suresh-kumar-j-heard-mr-p-s-raman-learned-senior-counsel-appearing-for-the-petitioner-and-mr-u-m-ravichandran-learned-special-government-pleader-appearing-for-the-respondent/
[9/30, 20:16] Sekarreporter1: W.P.No.26652 of 2022 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Judge Rsk சரமாரி கேள்வி சூப்பர் ஹீரோவா? https://sekarreporter.com/w-p-no-26652-of-2022-r-suresh-kumar-j-heard-mr-p-s-raman-learned-senior-counsel-appearing-for-the-petitioner-and-mr-u-m-ravichandran-learned-special-government-pleader-appearing-for-the-responde/
[10/1, 07:24] Sekarreporter1: Madras high court sep 30th order rss case hotel case rsk order case quashed against jayakumar https://sekarreporter.com/madras-high-court-sep-30th-order-rss-case-hotel-case-rsk-order-case-quashed-against-jayakumar/
[10/1, 07:24] Sekarreporter1: Sekarreporter whatsapp update last week round up news https://sekarreporter.com/sekarreporter-whatsapp-last-week-round-up-news/
[10/1, 07:34] Sekarreporter1: [10/1, 07:29] App Chandresekar New: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY*
Inviting you to *OFFLINE / ONLINE coaching* for
*JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE/ MUNSIF*
*Subject: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908*
_(Continuation)_
*Date : 1 .10. 2022*
*Timing*: 10:45 am to 1:00 pm
- *CONTACT NO : 7339650446*
[10/1, 07:34] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/1, 08:54] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/sxCef6yCiC4
[10/1, 08:58] Sekarreporter1: [10/1, 08:56] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1575784594317901824?t=nnWJqbxteUx9itD7e8Nemg&s=08
[10/1, 08:56] Sekarreporter1: On Friday the Hon’ble madras High court heard the batch of Contempt petitions filed by the RSS against the home secretary for rejection of their representations inspite of the positive court direction. On 22nd September the Hon’ble High Court of Madras granted RSS the permission to conduct a procession and public meeting on 2nd October and directed the State to permit the same, however the approval for the route march was rejected by the State by citing certain reasons of internal security. The Single bench of Hon’ble Justice GK Ilanthraiyan heard the contempt petitions filed by RSS secretaries. The contempt petitioners were represented by Senior Counsel Mr S Prabakaran,Mr G Rajagopalan and Mr N l Rajah and the State were represented by Senior Counsel Mr NR Elango and State PP Jinnah. The learner Senior Counsel Mr S Prabakaran vehemently contended that in spite of the positive direction given by this Hon’ble Court the orders have been overlooked by the State. It was submitted by the learner Senior Counsel that in the batch of writ petitions the court has given the positive direction to permit the rally, inspite of that deliberately and wantonly and malafidely the authorities disobeyed the orders of the court. The police authorities has willfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble court and the orders of this Hon’ble Court were let loose in the air.Learned Senior Counsel Mr S Prabakaran further contended that as per the Constitution the judiciary is an independent body and judges are constitutional functionaries, it is their right and liberty to safeguard the constitutional rights, however by not following the order of the court the authorities have made mockery of the judiciary and it’s system as no one should undermine the orders of this court. They should not get the guts to do it. The learned senior counsel further vehemently contended that the constitutional right granted cannot be overlooked by an executive order and the court order cannot be overlooked by way of the executive ban , the court order must be obeyed in letter and good spirit.
Learned senior counsel further contended that even assuming there is law and order problem it is beyond the imagination that it happens in all the districts at once and the ban on PFI is irrelevant to the present matter. It was further contended by learned Senior Counsel that there is no requirement to challenge the denial because already in one district the denial order was challenged before this Hon’ble court and the denial has been set aside and permission has been given by the common order however the same has also been rejected. To buttress his submissions the learner Senior Counsel Mr S Prabakaran relied upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court. On similar lines learned senior counsel Mr Rajah and Rajagopalan made submissions to the court. Learned senior counsel Mr NR Elango appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is a serious threat of law and order issue and communal violence in the event of the route march. It was further submitted by the learned senior counsel that IB has given reports apprehending internal disturbances and communal violence and hence for safety of the people the same was rejected. The RSS in view of the IB reports submitted the alternate dates for the route march and the Hon’ble Court taking note of the same adjourned the matters to October. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the issue is being closely monitored and directed the State to grant permission to the rally on 6th of November.
[10/1, 13:06] Sekarreporter1: [10/1, 13:04] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/ovckfJ14Ncs
[10/1, 13:05] Sekarreporter1: mhaa Acting chief justice excellant speech வக்கீல்கள் வெற்றி பெற 3 முக்கிய தேவை
[10/1, 13:05] Sekarreporter1: Super
[10/1, 13:05] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/1, 15:32] Sekarreporter1: [9/30, 20:00] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Qb_rVJ8y9Y8
[10/1, 15:20] Sekarreporter1: ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.15705-15706/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-09-2022 in OSA No. 231/2022 and OSA No. 232/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras) P. VAIRAMUTHU (A) AMMAN P. VAIRAMUTHU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THIRU K. PALANISWAMY & ORS. Respondent(s). Full order no stay mentioned in the order mhc adv inbadurai stated https://sekarreporter.com/item-no-28-court-no-7-section-xi/
[10/1, 15:47] Sekarreporter1: [10/1, 15:46] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/QGZb1wi9nCw
[10/1, 15:46] Sekarreporter1: Fir against former minister quashed full order. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.Nos.17212, 20904 & 17871 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10422, 13683 & 11442 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel for Ms.A.Madhumathi For Respondents For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.P.Anandan for M/S.Majestic Law Firm Crl.O.P.No.20904 of 2022 N.Jayapriya … Petitioner https://sekarreporter.com/fir-against-former-minister-quashed-full-order-the-honourable-mr-justice-g-k-ilanthiraiyan-crl-o-p-nos-17212-20904-17871-of-2022-and-crl-m-p-nos-10422-13683-11442-of-2022/
[10/1, 16:30] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/nJ-IQLAFem4
[10/1, 19:57] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/2ewJTd1J444
[10/1, 19:57] Sekarreporter1: https://youtube.com/shorts/ikguS9nPssA?feature=share
[10/2, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: Docters pg course case full order of. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P. No.26472 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.25535 of 2022 and For Petitioners : Mr.E.Manoharan [in WP.No.26472/2022] : Mr.R.Arumugam [inWP.Nos.19196 & 24016/2022] : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy [in W.P.Nos.21219, 25282, 21907 & 25759/2022] : Mr. K.Thilageswaran [in WP.No.21682/2022] : Mr.Sharath Chandran [in WP.Nos.25592, 25595, 25599, 25246, 25248, 25257 & 25258/2022] For Respondents : Mrs.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader COMMON O R D E R https://sekarreporter.com/docters-pg-course-case-full-order-of-the-honourable-mr-justice-r-suresh-kumar-w-p-no-26472-of-2022-and-w-m-p-no-25535-of-2022-and-for-petitioners/
[10/2, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 07:16] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1576387967316525057?t=nXujyWbModCPRabZI6Qdog&s=08
[10/2, 07:16] Sekarreporter1: நீதிபதி சுரேஷ்குமார், படிப்பை முடித்ததிலிருந்து 2 ஆண்டுகள் பணியாற்ற வேண்டும் என ஒப்பந்தம் போடப்படட்டு உள்ளதால் அந்த கால அவகாசம் முடிந்த பின்,mbbs docters சான்றிதழ்களை பெற மனுதாரர்களுக்கு உரிமையுண்டு என தெரிவித்துள்ளார். https://sekarreporter.com/%e0%ae%a8%e0%af%80%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%bf-%e0%ae%9a%e0%af%81%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%87%e0%ae%b7%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%95%e0%af%81%e0%ae%ae%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%9f/
[10/2, 08:44] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 08:42] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/OxGVEcvaQ5U
[10/2, 08:43] Sekarreporter1: ஒரு நாள் காலை
[10/2, 10:22] Sekarreporter1: Bharathi Yaarda Née? Who are you? Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan https://sekarreporter.com/bharathi-yaarda-nee-who-are-you-narasimhan-vijayaraghavan/
[10/2, 12:01] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 11:58] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/AHIhaAXLs0c
[10/2, 11:58] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/2, 13:02] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 12:02] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 11:58] Sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/AHIhaAXLs0c
[10/2, 11:58] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/2, 13:01] Sekarreporter1: நீதிபதி வைத்தியநாதன் பேசும் போது , எனது தந்தை சாதாரண சூ பாலீஷ் வியாபாரம் செய்தவர் என்று உள்ளம் உருகினார்
[10/2, 13:01] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/2, 13:20] Sekarreporter1: [10/2, 13:09] Chanduru Adv: It’s nice to hear the speeches of our Hon’ble Judges. They are good and informative. It shows their versatility.
Sekar Sir thank you for the prompt reporting. 🙏
[10/2, 13:19] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
[10/2, 16:28] Sekarreporter1: Appeals filed by State Government and TNERC as against order of Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan was allowed by Division Bench of Madurai HC comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SS Sundar and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Srimathi and appeals filed by TN Spinning Mills Association Dismissed on 28.9.2022. https://sekarreporter.com/appeals-filed-by-state-government-and-tnerc-as-against-order-of-honble-mr-justice-gr-swaminathan-was-allowed-by-division-bench-of-madurai-hc-comprising-of-honble-mr-justice-ss-sundar/
[10/2, 16:37] Sekarreporter1: The Division bench in its interim order dated 1.9.2022 suspended the order of single judge. The orders which were reserved after hearing arguments were pronounced on 28.9.2022 allowing Writ appeals of TNERC and State Govt and dismissed the Writ appeal preferred by Writ Petitioner P. Wilson appeared for Appellants(TNERC and State Govt ) Mr Sri Charan and Mr Isaac Mohanlal appeared for Respondents ( TN Spinning Mills Assn) https://sekarreporter.com/the-division-bench-in-its-interim-order-dated-1-9-2022-suspended-the-order-of-single-judge-the-orders-which-were-reserved-after-hearing-arguments-were-pronounced-on-28-9-2022-allowing-writ-appeals-of/
[10/3, 08:17] Sekarreporter1: [10/3, 08:16] Sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/concerns-raised-about-functioning-of-collegium-cannot-be-ignored-ensuring-representation-essential-ex-cji-nv-ramana-210799
[10/3, 08:16] Sekarreporter1: ..
[10/3, 08:24] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/10/03/10-3-0822-sekarreporter1-https-www-thehindu-com-news-cities-madurai-hc-directs-special-court-to-dispose-of-idol-theft-case-against-antique-dealer-in-one-month-article65963319-ece10-3-0822-s/
[10/3, 11:08] Sekarreporter1: Hon’ble High Court Common Order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.No.25247 of 2021 and batch cases. ORDER: In the Government Order first read above, the Government have ordered that, the Tahsildar/lndependent Deputy Tahsildar concerned will be authorised person to issue Legal Heir Certificate. In the Government Order second read above, the Government, among other things, have ordered that the issue of Legal Heir Certificate is one of the duties of Tahsildars. https://sekarreporter.com/honble-high-court-common-order-dated-12-08-2022-in-w-p-no-25247-of-2021-and-batch-cases-order-in-the-government-order-first-read-above-the-government-have-ordered-that-the-tahsildar-lndependen/
[10/3, 19:03] Sekarreporter1: THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, CHENNAI. PRESENT: THIRU.A.K.MEHBUB ALIKHAN, B.L.M., L.L.M., P.G.D.PM/IR. XIIII ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES Friday the 30th day of September, 2022. ( CBI/ACB/CHENNAI/RC/11/A/2012) C.C.NO.51 of 2012 The State by Addl.S.P., .SPE CBI, ACB, ChennaI ….. Complainant Vs 1) C.Rajan S/o Late M.Chinnadurai Additional Director General,DRI aqutal. விடுதலை. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Complainant. : Smt.S.Ananthi Learned Advocates for the accused No.1: : Mr.D. Jayasingh Learned Advocates for the accused2: : Mr.R.Srinivas https://sekarreporter.com/the-court-of-xiii-additional-special-judge-for-cbi-cases-chennai-present-thiru-a-k-mehbub-alikhan-b-l-m-l-l-m-p-g-d-pm-ir-xiiii-additional-special-judge-for-cbi-cases-friday-the-30th/
[10/3, 19:10] Sekarreporter1: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.26149 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.25230 of 2022 P.Chrisma Victoriya For Petitioner : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel Central Government Standing Counsel-for R1 Ms.Sunita Kumari, Standing Counsel – for R2 Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth Standing Counsel – for R3 Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate – for R4 O R D E R directed to show neet exam answer sheet https://sekarreporter.com/the-honourable-mr-justice-r-suresh-kumar-writ-petition-no-26149-of-2022-and-w-m-p-no-25230-of-2022-p-chrisma-victoriya-for-pet/
