Theriappan v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER Heard, Mr.R.Ramanujam, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

¶2This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2019, in Crl.A.No.81 of 2014 passed by Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur by confirming the judgment dated 28.04.2014 made in C.C.No.163 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Srivilliputhur.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the primary ground of challenge to the impugned order is that it suffers from the infirmity of confirming the petitioner's conviction despite the fact that he was not represented by any counsel. He further submits that the finding of the Appellate Court, particularly in paragraph 9, clearly shows that the petitioner was not represented by any advocate. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 15.11.2019 in Crl.A. No.81 of 2014 is extracted hereunder: ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCrl.RC(MD)oNo.961oofo2019o '9. ,e;j Nky;KiwaPL 2014k; Mz;L jhf;fy; nra;agg; l;Ls;sJ. md;wpypUe;J 2018k; Mz;L nrg;lk;gh; khjk; tiu ,e;j Nky;KiwaPL Kjd;ik khtl;l mkh;T ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; ,Ue;J te;j epiyapy;> ,e;j Nky;KiwapLjhuh; ,e;j tof;fpid elj;Jtjw;Nfw;w tifapy; Kd;tutpy;iy vd;gJ njhpatUfpwJ. =tpy;ypGj;Jhhpy; $Ljy; khtl;l ePjpkd;wk; fle;j Mz;L nrg;lk;gh; khjj;jpy; Jtf;fg;gl;L nray;gl;L te;j epiyapy; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; fle;j [Pd; khjk ; nghWg;Ngw;w gpd;G ,e;j tof;fpy; Nky;KiwaPLjhuh; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfp tof;fpid elj;j Kd; tuNtz;Lk; vdW; k;> 5 Mz;LfSf;F Nkw;gl;l tof;F epYitapy; ,Ug;gjhff; $wp 26.09.2010 md;W chpa mwptpgG; FtpKr gphpT 385d;gb Nky;KiwaPLjhuh ; tof;fwpQUf;F jug;gl;Ls;sJ. mJkl;Lkpd;wp Vw;fdNt ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gzpGhpe;J $Ljy; khtl;l ePjpgjp mth;fs; 12.03.2019 md;W Nky;KiwaPLjhuUf;F chpa mwptpg;G mDg;gpAs;sdh; vd;gJ tof;F NfhgG; fspd;gb njhpatUfpwJ. mt;tsT mwptpg;Gfs; mDg;gpaNghjpYk; Nky;KiwaPLjhuNuh> Nky;KiwaPLjhuh; jug;gpy; mtuJ tof;fwpQNuh ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfp jdJ jug;G thjq;fis vLj;Jiuf;f jtwpAs;sdh;. 5 tUlq;fSf;F Nkw;gl;L epYitapy; cs;s tof;Ffspy; jug;gpdh;fis mioj;J tprhuiz nra;J cgathjpfSf;F chpa ePjpia ey;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w epiyapy; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kaw;rp vLj;j NghjpYk;

Nky;KiwaPLjhuNuh>

mtuJ tof;fwpQNuh

,k;Nky;KiwaPl;L

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfhj epiyapy; cgathjpfSf;F chpa ePjpia ey;Fk; nghUl;L mwptpg;G mDg;gg;gl;l epiyapYk; Nky;KiwaPLjhuh; jug;gpy; ,e;j tof;fpid rkur nra;Jnfhs;tjhff; $wp eltbf;if vLf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w epiyapy; $l vt;tpj kDTk; Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. jd; jug;G epahaj;ij

vLj;Jiuf;f

vt;tpj

thjKk; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;j

Kd;tutpy;iy

vd;gjhy;

tUlq;fSf;F Nkw;gl;L epYitapy; cs;s ,e;j tof;fpy; ,dpAk; fhyjhkjg;gLj;jhky; chpa jPh;T fhz;gJ ePjpf;F cfe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd jPh;khdpj;J fPo;fz;lthW

,k;Nky;Kiwapl;L ePjpkd;wk; ,k;Nky;KiwaPL tof;fpw;F jPh;T fhz;fpwJ."

¶4In the absence of counsel, a duty was cast upon the Court to ensure that the petitioner/appellant/accused was represented by a legal aid counsel. However, the trial Court proceeded with the matter on merits and passed impugned order without the petitioner being properly represented. Though the petitioner has broadly indicated how the finding in the impugned order, holding him guilty of rash and negligent driving, may not withstand scrutiny if the facts are properly put forth, this Court is not inclined to go into the facts or merits of the above submission.

¶5In view thereof, this Court is inclined to remit the matter to the Appellate Court for reconsideration. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he would be represented by an advocate before the Appellate Court. In for any reason, the petitioner is not represented by an advocate, it is incumbent upon the Appellate Court to ensure that a Legal Aid Counsel is appointed to assist the Court.1

¶6With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-02-2026 gvn . Mangat Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (11) SCC 185 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J gvn To:

¶1The Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.

¶3The Inspector of Police Sirivillaputhur Town police Station Virudhunagar District ORDER IN 17/02/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17-02-2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and Crl.MP.(MD).No.2228 of 2020 Theriappan ...Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police Sirivillaputhur Town police Station Virudhunagar District ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 15.11.2019 made in Crl.A.No.81 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur confirming the Judgment dated 28.04.2014 made in C.C.No.163/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Srivilliputhur and set aside the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramanujam for M/s.Gandhi Associates For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor