At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that in Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar reported in

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024enraged the accused. Later that day, at around 3:15 p.m., accused 1 to 7 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Devadhas. The first accused is said to have hit Devadhas on the head with a stone, the second accused stabbed him with a knife, accused 3 to 6 beat him with sticks, and the seventh accused pushed him down. Devadhas was subsequently hospitalized the same day. 4. On the basis of the complaint given by the said Devadhas, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.62 of 1995 against 7 persons including the revision petitioner herein for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC. Subsequently the injured Devadhas succumbed to the injuries despite treatment at about 10.50 a.m. on 20.02.1995 and consequently, the respondent police altered case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC. The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has laid the charge sheet before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel and subsequently the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.224 of 2004 and is pending. Pending Sessions Case, the revision 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024petitioner/third accused has filed a petition under Sections 2(12), 9(2), 9(3) and 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 seeking to decide the juvenility of the revision petitioner and to split up the case as against him and forward him to the Juvenile Justice Board. 5. The case of the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner's date of birth is 01.03.1978 and the same is evident from the birth certificate, Church family card issued by the Kanyakumari Diocese, certificate of membership of Church of South India issued by the Kanyakumari Diocese and School certificate issued by Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, Palliyadi, that the revision petitioner was a child and was aged 16 years 11 months and 20 days on the date of alleged occurrence i.e., on 18.02.1995 and as such, the revision petitioner is a child as defined under Sections 2(12), 9(2), 9(3) and 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and that therefore, the case as against the revision petitioner has to be split up and he has to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings. 6. The respondent police has filed a counter statement stating that 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024the revision petitioner has produced forged documents along with the above petition, that there are major contradictions between documents produced by the revision petitioner regarding date of birth and address of the revision petitioner, that the alleged birth certificate and certificate issued by the Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, Palliyadi are fabricated and forged documents for the purpose of the present case, that the certificate issued by the Church authorities are not public documents and they are also forged documents, that the revision petitioner has filed the above petition with forged documents in order to escape from the clutches of law and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. During enquiry, the revision petitioner examined Thazhakkanvilai CSI Church pastor Thiru.Austin Sam, Headmaster of Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, Palliyadi Thiru.Silvans, Verkilambi Sub Registrar Thiru.Saravanan and Karungal Block Educational Officer Tmt.Kalavathi as P.W.1 to P.W.4 respectively and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The respondent has not chosen to examine any witnesses but exhibited one document as Ex.R.1. 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 20248. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner's parents are Valsalam Rose and Leela Bai. The revision petitioner's date of birth is claimed to be March 1, 1978, as per Ex.P.5 birth certificate, which is based on Ex.P.6 birth register. This date of birth is corroborated by Ex.P.1 Church family register, Ex.P.2 Church membership card, and Ex.R.1 Church register. However, the school records, including Ex.P.3 certificate, Ex.P.4 admission register from Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, Palliyadi, and Ex.P.7 admission register from Primary School Mullanginavilai, indicate a date of birth as July 31, 1977, as furnished by the petitioner's parents. Based on the date of birth being March 1, 1978, the revision petitioner would have been 16 years, 10 months, and 17 days old at the time of the alleged occurrence on February 18, 1995. If the date of birth is taken as July 31, 1977, the 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024revision petitioner would have been 17 years, 6 months, and 17 days old. In either case, the revision petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged occurrence.10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioner himself has given two dates as his date of birth one as 01.03.1978 and the second one as 31.07.1977 and the revision petitioner himself is not clear about his date of birth, that in some documents produced by the revision petitioner, his father has been shown as Valsalam and in other documents as Valsalam Rose, that the revision petitioner has not established that the individual by name Sujin Prakash shown in the said documents is the revision petitioner herein and that the revision petitioner, by forging and fabricating the documents, has attempted to evade from the clutches of law. 11. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that in Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that the plea of juvenility of the accused can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024after disposal of the case and there is no time limit for raising a plea of juvenility and it can be raised for the first time even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is settled law that delay in raising the plea of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such a claim. 12. Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with the procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court, which reads as under:-“7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.-(1)Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.(2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”13. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 prescribed the procedures for determination of age. Rule 12 reads as under:-“12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. xxx xxx xxx(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;(b)and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”14. Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with presumption and determination of age, which reads as under:-10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024“49. Presumption and determination of age.- (1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence)is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be.(2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2013 SC 1020 considering the above provisions and taking note of the several decisions, summarized the position and the same is extracted hereunder:-“36. ..... (i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024even after final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in appeal court.(ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.(iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024voters’ list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh2 and Pawan8 these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh10 the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant’s age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.”16. It is pertinent to note that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has repealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 9(2) mandates that the Court must conduct an enquiry and take necessary evidence (excluding affidavit) and determine the person age, recording its finding and Sub Section 3 specifies that if the Court finds the person to be a child, it must forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders and any sentence passed by the Court is deemed invalid. Section 94 of the 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with presumption and determination of age. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2022) 8 SCC 602 comparing the provisions of both the Acts of 2000 and 2015 and also taking note of the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules and considering various decisions, has listed out their cumulative consideration and the same is extracted hereunder:-“29. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: (i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after a final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. It can also be raised for the first time before this Court. (ii) An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the Court or the JJ Board. (iia) When the issue of juvenility arises before a Court, it would be under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought before a Committee or JJ Board, section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies. 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024(iib) If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. (iic) When an application claiming juvenility is made under section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then the procedure contemplated under section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said provision if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence and the age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person. Hence the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending (vide section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015). (iii) That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. (iv) The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. (v) That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. (vi) That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024down an abstract formula to 46 determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case. (vii) This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. (viii) If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.”18. Considering the legal position, let us examine the present case. The revision petitioner has produced copies of the Church family register (Ex.P.1) and Church membership card (Ex.P.2) through P.W.1, the pastor of Thazhakkanvilai CSI Church. During cross-examination, the prosecution presented the church register (Ex.R.1) brought by P.W.1, which indicates the revision petitioner's birthdate as initially 28.02.1978, 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024later corrected to 01.03.1978. P.W.1 explained that the discrepancy arose because the petitioner was born at night, leading to confusion about the date, which was subsequently corrected. Upon examination of Ex.R.1 and P.W.1's testimony, the explanation appears plausible.19. The revision petitioner summoned and examined the Headmaster of Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, as P.W.2, who produced the admission register showing V.L. Sugin Prakash's name at Serial No.7940 and according to them, based on the above, Ex.P.3 certificate was issued. As previously noted, P.W.3, the Sub Registrar, produced copies of the relevant page from the birth register (Ex.P.6) and testified that V.L. Sugin Prakash's date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1978. Additionally, the revision petitioner summoned the Karungal Block Educational Officer, who produced the admission register indicating V.L. Sugin Prakash's date of birth as 31.07.1977.20. It is evident from the records that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, pertaining to Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, indicate V.L. Sugin Prakash's date of birth as 31.07.1977. However, all other documents, including Church 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024records and the birth register, consistently show the date of birth as 01.03.1978.21. While it's true, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 refer to V. Sugin Prakash, whereas other records mention V.L. Sugin Prakash, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would clarify that Ex.R.1 Church records use V.L. Sugin Prakash when referring to his family of origin (parents and siblings) and V. Sugin Prakash when referring to his own family (wife and children). The counsel would submit that 'V' refers to his father Valsalam and 'L' to his mother Leela Bai, explaining the variation in naming convention. Notably, most documents consistently refer to V.L. Sugin Prakash, except Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Crucially, regardless of whether the date of birth is considered as 01.03.1978 or 31.07.1977, the individual would have been below 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence, 18.02.1995.22. Notably, both the Government Advocate and the Principal Sessions Judge have disputed the genuineness of the documents by 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024referencing certain portions of witness testimony and subsequently rejected them.23. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the documents consistently show the father's name as A. Valsalam Rose and the mother's name as M. Leela Bai. Furthermore, Ex.R.1 reveals that Valsalam Rose and Leela Bai's other children are listed as V.L. Jancy Prabhajeenee and V.L. Sunitha Prabhajeenee, born on 17.09.1976 and 09.08.1983, respectively, in addition to V.L. Sugin Prakash.24. Given the above, this Court finds no hesitation in holding that the revision petitioner has established a prima facie case demonstrating that he was under 18 years of age at the relevant time.25. Despite the prosecution disputing the genuineness of the documents produced by the revision petitioner and suggesting during cross-examination that these documents do not relate to him, they have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claims. Since 1995, the 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024prosecution has alleged that the revision petitioner was 19 years old, yet they have not produced any evidence to support this claim despite the revision petitioner's specific dispute. Moreover, the prosecution has not provided the correct date of birth or taken steps to verify records from relevant institutions, such as Christucoil L.M.S. Hr. Sec. School, Mullangivilai Primary School, or the Sub Registrar office. No contra evidence has been presented by the prosecution. As argued by the revision petitioner's counsel, the prosecution and the court have taken a hypertechnical approach in evaluating the evidence supporting the revision petitioner's claim of being a juvenile. In the absence of any contra evidence, particularly evidence showing the revision petitioner was a major at the relevant time, the Principal Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petition without proper consideration.26. It is pertinent to mention that Rule 12(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 used the expression 'prima facie' on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available and Rule 12(3) used the expression 'by seeking evidence by obtaining'. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2013 SC 553,“33. We also remind all Courts/J.J. Board and the Committees functioning under the Act that a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate etc. mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii). The courts in such situations act as a parens patriae because they have a kind of guardianship over minors who from their legal disability stand in need of protection.34. “Age determination inquiry” contemplated under section 7A of the Act r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court need obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above mentioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.35. Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order; that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in subsection (5) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of the Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the Juvenility on its determination.”27. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that courts must act as parens patriae, exercising a guardianship role over minors who require protection due to their legal disability. In line with this principle, courts exercising parens patriae power should take necessary steps to obtain documents as per the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules. However, in the present case, neither the court nor the prosecution attempted to obtain the necessary documents or verify the records produced by the revision petitioner with the relevant authorities. Notably, under Section 9(2) of the 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the court is required to record a finding on the matter after inquiry, stating the person's age as nearly as may be. The court has a duty to determine whether the person claiming juvenility was indeed a juvenile or major at the relevant time. In this case, the learned Principal Sessions Judge failed to determine the age or provide a finding on the revision petitioner's juvenility status at the relevant time.28. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dismissing the petition cannot be sustained and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Notably, the FIR was registered in 1995, and the Sessions case has been pending since 2004. Given the prolonged pendency, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter for further enquiry by the trial court. Based on the available evidence, particularly the birth register and certificate corroborated by Church records, this Court determines the petitioner's age as 17 years at the time of the occurrence, giving precedence to these documents over school records. Consequently, this Court concludes that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence.24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 202429. This Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7182 of 2023 in S.C.No.224 of 2004 is set aside. The petitioner is declared to have been a juvenile at the time of occurrence. In view of the petitioner's juvenility status, the learned Principal Sessions Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is hereby closed. 04.08.2025NCC :yes/NoIndex :yes/NoInternet:yes/NocsmTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Karungal, Kanniyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024K.MURALI SHANKAR ,J. csmPre-Delivery Order made inCrl.R.C.(MD)No.1257 of 2024andCrl.M.P.(MD)No.12919 of 2024Dated : 04.08.202526/26