LexRAVICHANDRAN versus STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 313
RAVICHANDRAN
v.
STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 909-910 of 2003)
MARCH 25, 2010
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
A
B
ss. 120-8, 4201120-8, 477A/120-8 and s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of c
Prevention of Corruption Act - Interpolation and forgery in
permit for palmolein oil - Conviction by trial court, affirmed
by High Court - HELD: There is no evidence on record to
indicate any link to prove and establish that the interpolation
and forgery was done by any of the accused persons.namely,
D
A 1, A2 or A4 - Only because A4 is the brother of A3, it does
not in any manner prove and establish that he had knowledge
that the permit was interpolated when he had presented it
before the office of the Federation - In the considered opinion
of the Court, the interpolation as· also the initials appended E
thereto have not been proved and established to be in the
hand of A2 and A 1 - The prosecution has miserably failed
to prove and establish that the alleged interpolation and
forgery was done by either A 1, A2 or A4 - Since A-3 died
pending appeal, ·Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003 stand
abated - All the other appeals are allowed, the orders of F
conviction and sentences passed against each of the
accused persons set aside - Abatement of appeal - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.394(2), proviso - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 - ss.5(1)(d)/5(2) - Pondicherry
Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks, Price and G
Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1975 - Clause 4(9) -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - s.7(1)(a)(ii).
{para 13,
15-17]
313
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A
Rahim Khan vs. Khurshid Ahmed and Others (1974) 2
B
c
SCC 660; and .Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1980 SC 531, referred to.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 394(2), proviso - Application by legal representatives
for leave to continue the appeal on death of accused-
appe/lant - Allowed.
Case Law Reference:
(1974) 2 sec 660
AIR 1980 SC 531
referred to
referred to
para 14
para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
0
No. 909-910 of 2003.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.12.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madra~ in Crl Appeal No. 220 of 1994
& 222 of 1994.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1515-1516, 1527-1528, 805-806, 807-808 & 911-
912 of 2003.
R. Venkatarmani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Aljo, R. Nedumaran,
F Shivaji M. Jadhav, Arvind Kumar, Senthil Jagadeesan, V.
Ramasubramanian for the Appellant.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, M. Chatterjee, P.K. Dey, A. Deb
Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. All these appeals involve similar and connected facts.
H Since, the legal issues that arise for our consideration are also
RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF
315
POLICE, MADRAS
similar, we proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this
A
common judgment and order.
2. Before we delve into the facts of the case, it would be
appropriate for us to deal with the miscellaneous applications
that have been filed in this Court and also the statement of the
learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-
806 of 2003.
B
3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6391 to 6394 of
2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of2003 and Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6396-6399 of 2010 in Criminal
C
Appeal Nos. 1527-1528 of 2003 are applications filed by the
legal representatives of the accused No. 1 namely, Kumaraguru
seeking for substitution of their names in place of the deceased
appellant-accused No. 1. During the pendency of the appeals
in this Court, appellant-accused No. 1 died on 9th April, 2007.
D
The present applications have therefore been filed by his legal
representatives seeking for substitution of their names in place
of the deceased appellant accused No. 1. In support of the
aforesaid prayer, the legal representatives of the deceased
appellant-accused No. 1 have relied upon the provisions of
E
Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. For the
reasons stated in the said applications, the applications are
allowed. The names of the applicants who are the legal
representatives of the deceased-appellant accused No. 1 are,
thus, allowed to be brought on record. The said applications
F
stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
4. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.