Madras High Court
S.Nagendran vs State on 20 June, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CRL RC(MD)No.686 of 2010
S.Nagendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
State, Rep.by
The Assistant Sub Inspector,
RPF Post,
Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.42 of 2008) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.A No.
33 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram dated 17.08.2010 in C.C No.127 of 2008 on the
file of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram dated
18.05.2010 in Crime No.42 of 2008 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment by judgement dated 18.05.2010 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. The first appellate court while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, modified the six months sentence period to three months simple imprisonment.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that he would not question the finding of guilt rendered by the courts below and that he will only plead for invocation of Probation of Offenders Act. He would further point out that in this case no injury or casualty had occurred. The value of damage is about Rs.4,000/- only and the said amount has also been paid. The petitioner is working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and he is in service and that he would lose his job if the conviction is http://www.judis.nic.in 3 confirmed. The revision petitioner is having a son and daughter and the petitioner's family will be ruined if the conviction is confirmed.
4.The revision petitioner/accused had not come under any adverse notice either previously or subsequently. The revision petitioner is therefore dealt with under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The revision petitioner shall not be visited with any adverse consequence in his service. The revision petitioner has already been punished with stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years.
5.The sentence of imprisonment alone is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. This revision case is partly allowed.
20.06.2019 Skm http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm To
1.The Assistant Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRL RC(MD)No.686 of 2010
20.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in