Madras High Court
V.M.Sudhan vs T.Benjamin on 1 August, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 01.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.353 of 2007
V.M.Sudhan : Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Benjamin
2.Ramesh
3.Raja
4.Beni
5.Ravi
6.The State of Tamil Nadu
through Sub Inspector of Police,
Kanyakumari. : Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397
and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the
order, dated 30/04/2007 made in CC No.217 of 2003 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santhakumaresan
(Legal Aid Counsel)
For R1 to R5 : M/s.Arockia Selvi
(No appearance)
For 6th Respondent : M/s.Aasha
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court namely the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, in CC No. 217 of 2003, dated 30/04/2007.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
There was a money transaction between the de-facto complainant and the first accused. The de-facto complainant promised to return the amount of Rs.30,000/- before the end of 2000. Over the above said previous enmity, on 10/10/2005 at about 6.45 pm, when the de-facto complainant was riding his two wheeler near Ottaiyal Vilai Higher Secondary School, A1 to A5 came in a four wheeler, prevented the de-facto complainant, kidnaped him and forced to sign in the blank bond papers. After obtaining the signature in the blank bond papers, he was sent back through an Auto. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a complaint has been given by the de-facto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
3.After the investigation was over, final report was filed stating that all the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 365, 423 and 506(ii) IPC. Charges were framed and the case pending before the trial court from 2004. No steps have been taken by the prosecution to produce the witnesses in- spite of issuing warrant. Suo motu, the prosecution side witness was closed by the trial court. Following the judgment reported in 1980-TNLJ-162, the prosecution witness was closed and the accused were acquitted.
4.Challenging the above said order of acquittal, the de-facto complainant preferred this revision.
5.Even during the course of the revisional proceedings, the revision petitioner did not turn up. So on his behalf, an Advocate from Legal Aid panel was appointed. There was no representation for the accused persons also. This is an order of acquittal and the revision petitioner did not turn up. Even though, an Advocate has been appointed on behalf of the petitioner, whether he is alive or not is also not known. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
6.So, I am of considered view that considering the factual circumstances of the case, the revision petition can be dismissed for non prosecution, without going into the merits of the case.
7.In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed as non-prosecution.
01/08/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To.
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.RC(MD)No.353 of 2007 01/08/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis