A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 NOMINAL INDEX M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Sathiya v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
REPORTS
Case Title: M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction of one M/s. RK Emu Frams which was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection Of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act after observing that the order of conviction was passed without hearing the appellant/accused.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the right of the accused to be represented was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that even when the counsel for the accused is absent, the Court should not remain helpless and must appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Case Title: K Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Coming to the aid of a 13 years old rape victim, the Madras High Court recently allowed termination of her 28 weeks + 3 days old pregnancy on a plea by the girl's father.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that even though the pregnancy had crossed the legal period of 20 weeks, it had to be noted that she was a small statured girl and was not mentally or physically strong to withstand the pregnancy. Apart from this, the court also noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner herein, was an agricultural labourer and if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, not only the victim girl but the whole family would suffer. The court also noted that it had wider power under Article 226 of the Constitution than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
While discussing the power of the court to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the CrPC, the Madras High Court recently observed that the words "at any previous stage" used in the provision would mean the stage from when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under:
"The phrase "at any previous stage of the case" means a case on file with cognizance being taken , as otherwise, there cannot be a 'discharge' from the case. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., itself has not commenced and even before that such application (discharge) cannot be filed."
Case Title: Sathiya v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
In a rare incident, the Madras High Court released a mother, convicted for killing her two daughters, on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy saw the case as a testimony to the gender inequality prevailing in the country.
The court found it to be a case of "Nalla Thangal syndrome" wherein unable to bear the taunt of the society, the state of mind of the mother led her to attempt suicide and kill her children along with it. This concept of "state of mind" had been previously considered by the court in the case of Suyambukani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and was later reiterated by a division bench in Poovammal Vs. State.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer sealing the headquarters of AIADMK party. Justice Sathish Kumar directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy and also directed the police to provide necessary protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. In view of the violence that had taken place last week in connection with the sealing, the court also directed Edappadi Palaniswamy to not allow party cadres to enter the building premises. The court also directed the registry to keep the pendrive containing video footage of the violence in safe custody.
Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.
Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that whenever a vehicle is involved in a crime, the same cannot be returned to the owner when confiscation proceedings are pending before the authorities.
Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:
"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."
Case Title: Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed an order of the Government of Tamil Nadu sealing Sudha Hospital in Erode for their alleged involvement in illegal sale of oocyte from a 16 year old girl.
Justice Abdul Quddhose quashed the order after observing that the respondent authorities had failed to record in writing the reasons for suspending the registration of the clinic establishment without issuing any notice, as was necessary under proviso to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment (Regulation) Act 1997 and Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Case Title: Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court on Friday directed Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the allegations levelled against retired IPS Officer AG Ponn Manickavel for his alleged collusion with idol smugglers. The orders were issued by Justice G Jayachandran in a plea moved by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police Kader Batcha.
The court concluded that for it to satisfy its conscious, it was necessary that there was an impartial investigation. To ensure the same, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to ensure fair and impartial investigation. For this, the court deemed it fit to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Ramalingam v The Director General of Police and ors
Case No: WP/18455/2022
The Madras High Court on Monday directed that whenever an incident of death occurs in an educational institution, the investigation should be conducted by the CB-CID. The court also directed that in such cases, the post mortem should be conducted by a team of three doctors.
Justice N Sathish Kumar allowed re-postmortem to be conducted by a group of three doctors and a retired forensic director to be appointed by the court. The entire post mortem shall be videographed. The court also allowed the Petitioner's counsel to be present at the time of postmortem but also directed him not to interfere with the procedure. The court also came down heavily on the protests that turned violent in parts of Kallakurichi on Sunday.
ALSO READ: Kallakurichi Student Suicide: Madras High Court Allows Re-Postmortem Without Parents
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai bench registry to register a suo motu case of criminal contempt against Youtuber/Commentator Savukku Shankar for his tweets against the judge. The court also directed the registry to implead social media intermediaries like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube and send notices to their compliance officers. The court also impleaded the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Savukku Shankar had through his tweets alleged that the Judge had "met someone" in connection to the proceedings against another Youtuber Maridhas thus raising questions on the order passed by the judge which was in favor of Maridhas.
Expressing concern over the manner in which a visiting parent is often treated by the parent who is in custody of the child, the Madras High Court recently observed that every child has a right and need for an unthreatened and loving relationship with both the parents.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remarked that every child has a right to access both parents and get the love and affection of both parents. Whatever be the differences between the spouses, the child cannot be denied company of the other spouse.