Accused Says High Court Posted Case For 'Fresh Hearing' Despite Earlier Acquittal : Supreme Court Orders Inquiry By Madras HC Chief Justice
Mehal Jain
16 Dec 2021 9:52 AM IST
The Supreme Court has asked the Madras High Court Chief Justice to inquire into the grievance of a petitioner that the High Court posted her case for "fresh hearing" despite acquitting her in the same case earlier.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, hearing a writ petition, noted that by a judgment dated 15 November 2000, the IIIrd Special Judge/ XIIIth Additional Judge...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
The Supreme Court has asked the Madras High Court Chief Justice to inquire into the grievance of a petitioner that the High Court posted her case for "fresh hearing" despite acquitting her in the same case earlier.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, hearing a writ petition, noted that by a judgment dated 15 November 2000, the IIIrd Special Judge/ XIIIth Additional Judge at Chennai convicted the husband of the petitioner for an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs 10,000, with a default sentence. The petitioner, who was the second accused, was convicted under the provisions of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs 5,000, with a default sentence. The bench recorded that the petitioner has stated that she and her husband filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
"At this stage, it would be material to note the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the appeal was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court on diverse dates between 8 February 2013 and 20 February 2013 and was reserved for judgment. According to the petitioner, the appeal was listed for pronouncement of judgment on 30 April 2013, when the Single Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner has stated that an application was made for seeking a certified copy of the judgment, which was not made available. On 19 July 2018, the appeal was listed for fresh hearing before another Judge of the High Court. Based on the above averments, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with the grievance that the listing of the appeal for "fresh hearing" would be violative of her rights under Articles 14, 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973," noted the bench.
The bench further took note that on 29 October 2021, the petition was directed to be listed on 22 November 2021 and has now been posted before this Court, and in the meantime, the petitioner has filed certain additional documents. "Mr S Nagamuthu, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has, inter alia, relied upon the compilation of additional documents to trace the progress of the criminal appeal until the date when it appears to have been reserved for judgment. The petitioner has also appended a list of case bundles stated to have been received from the residence of Dr Justice T Mathivanan, who demitted office on 27 May 2017," recorded the bench.
Finally, the Supreme Court division bench proceeded to observe, "In our view, the appropriate course of action would be to request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras to conduct an enquiry on the administrative side into the grievance of the petitioner."
"We clarify that what has been recorded in the earlier part of the order does not reflect any finding of this Court. The Chief Justice is requested to conduct an enquiry into the grievance of the petitioner. The Chief Justice would be at liberty to take necessary assistance in order to ascertain the factual position and may thereafter take an appropriate decision on the grievance which has been addressed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is thereafter aggrieved on the decision taken on the administrative side, we keep open all the rights and contentions of the petitioner to pursue her remedies in accordance with law", the bench has said in its order.
Case Title: P. Nallammal v. The Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Madras & Anr
Next Story