Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 14 - October 20, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 NOMINAL INDEX K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385 Abdul Gani Raja v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386 Jacob v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387 The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388 Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 REPORTS General Power Of Attorney Executed Jointly By More Than One Principal Doesn't Automatically Terminate On Death Of One Principal: Madras HC Case Title: K.A.Meeran Mohideen v Sheik Amjad and others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 385 The Madras High Court has ruled that when a general power of attorney is executed jointly by more than one principal, the death of one principal would not automatically terminate the agency. Asnwering a reference, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel held that the question of termination would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would depend upon the intention of the parties at the time of execution of the power of attorney. The court observed that if the intention was to continue the power even after death, the agency would continue will the object sought to be achieved is complete and if there was a specific interest in the agency, the agency would be terminated in respect of the principal who dies. Penetration With Male Organ Not Necessary To Constitute Rape, Penetration Could Be With Any Body Part, Object Or Even An Attempt: Madras HC Case Title: Abdul Gani Raja v The State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 386 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that to constitute an offence of rape, penetration using the male organ is not necessary and any penetration using any body part or object or even an attempt to penetrate or manipulate a body part could be considered under rape. Justice K Murali Shankar observed that post the 2013 amendment to the criminal laws, the definition of rape had become broader. The court noted that while the pre-amendment definition mandated penetration with a male organ to constitute sexual intercourse, this main ingredient was removed by way of the amendment. The court added that the use of fingers, objects or any body part to penetrate or manipulate was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. Criminal Accusation Doesn't Imply One Should Surrender All Comforts To Participate In Trial: Madras HC Grants Relief To Octogenarian Accused Case Title: Jacob v The State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387 The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of an octogenarian with Parkinsons disease by directing Special Court for CBI cases to frame charges in a case against him through video conferencing, as per Section 355 of the BNSS. Justice N Seshasayee observed that merely because a person was facing criminal accusations, it would not imply that he should surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in the trial proceedings. The court added that it was imperative to make life of litigants least convenient. The court added that courts must always resort to technology whenever possible to make life more convenient for all concerned. The court added that as per Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, personal attendance of the accused also included his attendance through audio-video electronic means. The court noted that the explanation showed the need to incorporate and integrate technology into the procedure and it was appropriate for the courts to resort to the same. Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction In Schedule Offence Not Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court Case Title: The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388 The Madras High Court recently observed that pendency of a criminal appeal against the conviction in a schedule offence is not a bar to proceed wit trial in the PMLA case. The court stressed that the schedule case and the PMLA case are distinct and different and thus the trial in money laundering case could not be postponed merely on the pendency of a criminal appeal in the schedule case. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the offence of money laundering had wider ramifications and could not be equated with offence under penal laws. The court added that though schedule offence is a prerequisite for initiation of proceedings under PMLA, once initiated it became independent and had to be dealt with separately. TN Siddha Medical Council Members Permitted To Practice Modern Medicine But Not To Store Allopathy Medicine Without License: Madras HC Case Title: Tmt.S.Sindhu v Tamil Nadu State represented by Drugs Inspector, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 The Madras High Court recently observed that while the Siddha practitioners in the State of Tamil Nadu were not barred...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 14 - October 20, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags