Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing K.Ramaiah vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 4 July, 2006

P.Manikandan @ C.D.Mani vs The State Rep By on 16 December, 2019

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.437 of 2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 148, 353, 307, and 506 (2) of I.P.C and under Section 25(1)(B) (a) and 3 of the ARMS Act. He further submitted that the respondent police after investigation has filed a final report and based on the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur has taken the case on file in P.R.C.No.20 of 2019 and the case is pending for committal. He further submitted that the petitioner has applied for copy of the charge sheet and other records which were filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., on 06.06.2019 and the same was returned stating that when the petitioner is evading service of summons, how copy application is maintainable. Subsequently, on 31.10.2019, the petitioner has filed another copy application and the learned Judicial 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.30706 of 2019 Magistrate has returned the said application also on the same reason. He further submitted that as per Rule 339 of Criminal Rules of Practice, the petitioner is entitled to get a copy for the aforesaid documents, but, the learned Judicial Magistrate without considering the same has returned the copy applications mechanically and hence, he requests to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur to entertain the copy application of the petitioner and issue copy of the documents which are mentioned in the said copy application. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his aforesaid contentions, relied upon the decision of this Court, in K.Ramaiah Vs. R.Sudhakara Naidu in Crl.OP.No.16006 of 2006 dated 04.07.2006.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian vs The State on 20 November, 2007

In support of the above said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1600 (K.Ramaiah Vs. R.Sudhakara Naidu). In that decision referring to Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and other decisions of this Court, the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court cannot refuse to receive the copy application and it is bound to follow Rule 339 in so far as copies are given to the parties are concerned.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K M Ram - Full Document

Tamilghanasambanthan vs State Represented By on 18 September, 2015

5.Contending that the remarks offered by the Magistrate should be construed as part of the record of the criminal case and therefore, copy of the same should be given to the accused, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 481, in K.Ramaiah v. R.Sudhakara Naidu, whereunder it was held that the accused is entitled to certified copies of complaint and related documents, in a case pertaining to complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Vimala - Full Document
1