Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 25 - December 1, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 NOMINAL INDEX D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452 Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453 Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 Piyush Sethia v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 Church of South India v D Devasahayam and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 X v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 S.Saravanan v The Director General of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 458 A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459 S. Mohan v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 460 X v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 461 R. v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462 Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463 M/s. SPK and Co. v. The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 REPORT “Church Properties Being Swindled Against Tenets Of Bible” Madras High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Sale Of Church Land To Private Persons Case Title: D.Devasahayam v Central Bureau of Investigation Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 451 The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint and inquire into the sale of a church land to private persons. The land, which is originally a government land, was assigned to the church to be used for the welfare of destitute women and children. Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Church of South India (CSI) had instead transferred the property to private persons for their own “selfish purpose” instead of working for the noble object for which the land was originally assigned. The court was thus satisfied that there were prima facie materials to warrant a CBI inquiry and thus directed the CBI to register the complaint and proceed accordingly. The court added that the church had now become voiceless with the administrators muzzling the voice of those who question the illegal activities. The court thus observed that it was bound to protect the interest of the church under the parents patriae jurisdiction. The court observed that while the bishop and administrators of the church were duty bound to keep then property for dedicated purpose, the property was often swindled against the tenets of the bible. “Serious Issue”: Madras High Court Orders Probe After IO Says She Didn't Investigate Case, Her Signatures Were Forged Case Title: P Venkatesan v The Superintendent of Police and Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 452 The Madras High Court recently ordered a de novo investigation into a case after the Investigation Officer informed the court that she had not investigated the case and her signature in the final report was forged. After the unusual turn of events, Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the CBCID to take over the investigation. The court added that the investigation should not be limited to the issue of the case but also ascertain as to who prepared the earlier police report. Calling it a serious issue, the court added that after the truth comes to light, independent proceedings needed to be initiated. [NDPS Act] Prima Facie Every Cell Of Magic Mushroom Contains Chemical, To Be Weighed Entirely To Ascertain Commercial Quantity: Madras HC Case Title: Dhanaraj v The Inspector of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 453 While hearing a bail plea under the NDPS Act, the Madras High Court recently noted that every cell of 'magic mushroom' contains psychotropic chemicals and hence the entire mushroom would have to be weighed to determine if the quantity confiscated is falling under commercial quantity. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus while dismissing a bail plea prima facie differed from the stand taken by the Karnataka High Court in Saeidi Mozdhdeh Ehsan v State of Karnataka wherein a single judge had opined that the quantity of the substance had to be taken to find out if the seized item fell within commercial quantity. Differing with the Karnataka High Court, Justice Chakravarthy observed that the penal statutes had to be construed strictly without interpreting them to "aid the accused". Section 303(2) BNS | FIR Can Be Registered Only After Getting Appropriate Order From Magistrate: Madras High Court Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could be filed for these offence only after getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate. Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 25 - December 1, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags