High Court · 2025

Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 09.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025inCrl.RC.(MD)No.1231 of 2025 1.Anandhakumar,S/o.Aalappan,Tharagampatti,Kadavur Taluk,Karur District.2.Ganesan,S/o.Natarajan,Main Road, Palayam,Gujiliyamparai Taluk,Dindigul District. ... PetitionersVs.State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by,The Inspector of Police,Gujiliyamparai Police Station,Dindigul District.(Crime No.205 of 2007) ... Respondent Prayer : This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, to suspend the execution of sentence in Criminal Appeal No.691/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindiguldated 08.09.2022 confirming the Judgment in C.C. No. 215 of 2008 on the file of theLearned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandhur,Dindigul District, dated 07.08.2018, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. For Petitioners : Mr.D.Paul Bright SinghFor Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal Side)ORDERThis Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred seeking to suspendthe sentence imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Additional District Munsifcum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandhur, Dindigul District in C.C.No.215 of 2008dated 07.08.2018, which was confirmed by the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, Dindigul in Crl.A.No.69 of 2018, dated 08.09.2022. 2.The petitioners, who were the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.215 of 2008,were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025Petitioners'NamePetitioners'RankProvision underwhich convictedSentenceAnandhakumarFirst accused U/s.417 r/w 34 ofIPCU/s.420 r/w 34 ofIPCTo undergo 6 monthssimple imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default, to undergo 3months simpleimprisonment. To undergo 1 year simpleimprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault, to undergo 3months simpleimprisonment. GanesanSecond accusedU/s.417 r/w 34 ofIPCU/s.420 r/w 34 ofIPCTo undergo 6 monthssimple imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default, to undergo 3months simpleimprisonment. To undergo 1 year simpleimprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault, to undergo 3months simpleimprisonment. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 20253.The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by thetrial Court was confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,Dindigul, in Crl.A.No.69 of 2018, dated 08.09.2022. Challenging the above convictionand sentence, the petitioners have filed the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.RC(MD)No.1231 of 2025 along with the instant miscellaneous petition, seekingsuspension of sentence and bail.4.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that both the Trial Courtand the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that the cause of action arose atKarur District, but the respondent has registered the case against the petitioners inDindigul District. Thus, it was submitted that the respondent has no jurisdiction toregister the case against the petitioners. He further submitted that both the TrialCourt and the Lower Appellate Court failed to take into account that P.W.3, P.W.4,P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are working under the defacto complainant and P.W.2 andthe respondent has not examined the independent witnesses in the above case.Therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court, dated 07.08.2018, which wasconfirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 08.09.2022, is highlyerroneous, has caused serious injustice to the Petitioners and is against theprinciples of natural justice. In view of the above, it was argued that the convictionrecorded by the Trial Court is legally un-sustainable. It was further argued that both4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to notice the discrepancies inthe deposition of witnesses and the crystal part of the evidences was not at allassessed by both the Courts. It was further argued that the judgments passed byboth the Courts were based on surmises and conjectures without considering theentire evidence on record. 5.It was further argued that due to the pendency of the Criminal Cases beforethis High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this CriminalRevision Case will be finally heard and decided. He further submits that there arearguable points in this Revision Case and the petitioners have fair chance of successin this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, he prayed for suspension of sentence and alsoprayed this Court that the petitioners may be released on bail, till the disposal of thisCriminal Revision Case, as the Petitioners were already granted bail during trial.6.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of theallegations made against the Revision Petitioners have also been placed forth beforethe Court. The circumstances, which, according to the counsel, led to the falseimplication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has beenassured on behalf of the Revision Petitioners that they are ready to cooperate withthe process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the Courtwhenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025may deem fit to impose upon them. The Revision Petitioners undertake that, incase, they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and willcooperate in disposal of the Revision Case.7.Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for theRespondent has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for theRevision Petitioners and submits that the judgments passed by both the Courts areas per law after considering the entire evidence. Thus, it was submitted that therelief sought by the Revision Petitioners at this stage be refused by this Court. 8.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioners, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate theevidence on record and the judgment was passed without considering the entirematerials placed before it and during trial, the Revision petitioners were also on bail.9.Further, it is observed that when the accused has been under incarcerationfor sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which is in favour theaccused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, asthe liberty of the individual would be at stake if the Revision results in acquittal at alater point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 is of relevance.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 202510.The petitioners have raised substantial grounds in the Revision whichwould require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken upin the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that theRevision petitioners are entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail. 11.Accordingly, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted toRevision Petitioners, namely, Anandhakumar, S/o.Aalappan and Ganesan,S/o.Natarajan, on the following conditions:(i)The Revision petitioners shall surrender before the LearnedAdditional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandhur,Dindigul District within three weeks from today and on suchsurrender, the revision petitioners are ordered to be released onbail on their executing a personal bond along with two suretieseach for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each subject to furnishingundertaking that they will co-operate in the hearing of the presentRevision.(ii)The Revision petitioners and the sureties shall affix theirphotographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and theabove said Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bankpass Book to ensure their identity; and;(iii)The realization of fine, if any, shall also remain suspended duringthe pendency of the present Revision.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 202512.On acceptance of their bail bonds and sureties, the learned Trial Court shalltransmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of thisRevision.13.With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. sd/- 09/09/2025 / TRUE COPY / /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. mmTo:1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,Dindigul.2.The Additional District Munsif Judicial Magistrate, Vedasnadhur, Dindigul. 3.The Inspector of Police, Gujiliyamparai Police Station, Dindigul District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.K.ASOK KUMAR RAM, Advocate ( SR-9889[I] dated 10/09/2025 )8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025 ORDER IN Crl.MP(MD) No.11867 of 2025inCrl.RC.(MD)No.1231 of 2025 Date :09/09/2025PS/SAR.15.09.2025 9P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9