Madras High Court holds former Coimbatore Collector, DRO and RDO guilty of contempt
Justice P. Velmurugan also held Coimbatore North Tahsildar Manivel guilty of contempt and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment besides paying an amount equivalent to his monthly salary as compensation to the petitioner. The sentence was, however, suspended for the limitation period of 30 days when an appeal could be filed.
The judge purged Village Administrative Officer Yamuna alone from the contempt proceedings initiated by 74-year-old senior citizen John Chandy in 2024 for having not complied with the orders passed by the court on November 8, 2023 to consider the petitioner's plea to remove illegal entries from the 'patta' related to his immovable property located at Chinnavedampatti village.
In his counter affidavit to the contempt plea, Mr. Pati told the court that he got transferred from the post of Coimbatore Collector in February 2025 and that he tenders unconditional apology to the court for not having complied with the order passed by the court in 2023 to conduct an inquiry with respect to the petitioner's plea and dispose it of within two months.
However, observing that the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, the judge held that Mr. Pati, Ms. Sharmila and Mr. Govindan, being superior officers, had failed to ensure that tahsildar Manivel complied with the court orders within the stipulated time. 'It is clear that the respondents one to four have deliberately disobeyed the order under contempt. They cannot be absolved,' the judge concluded.
Three more Tahsildars sentenced
Allowing yet another contempt of court petition filed by P. Shankar in 2024, Justice Velmurugan found Chengalpattu Tahsildar Venkataraman guilty of having wilfully not obeyed an order passed by the court on February 28, 2024 to consider the petitioner's request for grant of patta. The judge sentenced the Tahsildar for one month of simple imprisonment.
Further, the Tahsildar was directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 from his salary to the petitioner failing which he would have undergo 10 more days of simple imprisonment. The judge, however, suspended the sentence for the limitation period of 30 days provided under the Contempt of Courts Act for filing an appeal against the conviction before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Further, dealing with a third contempt plea filed by G. Murugathal, the judge sentenced Coimbatore Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Shri Malathi, Madukkarai Tahsildar A. Sathyan and Vellalur Village Administrative Officer to one month of simple imprisonment and directed them too to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 each to the petitioner, or in default, undergo 10 more days of imprisonment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC cancels bail to wrestler Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankar murder case
New Delhi, Aug 13 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Delhi High Court's March 4 order granting bail to Olympic medallist wrestler Sushil Kumar, the prime accused in the 2021 murder of junior national champion Sagar Dhankar. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the plea filed by the victim's father, Ashok Dhankad, challenging the High Court's decision, and directed Kumar to surrender within one week. Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul appeared for the petitioner, while senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani represented Kumar. Kumar, along with several others, is accused of brutally assaulting Dhankar and his friends Sonu and Amit Kumar in the parking lot of Delhi's Chhatrasal Stadium on May 4, 2021, allegedly over a property dispute. Dhankar, 23, died from cerebral injury caused by blunt force trauma, while the others sustained serious injuries. The incident led to a high-profile manhunt for Kumar, who evaded arrest for 18 days before being apprehended by Delhi Police in Mundka on May 23, 2021. Following his arrest, Kumar was suspended from his Railways job and remained in judicial custody until the High Court granted him bail earlier this year. The Supreme Court, however, found merit in the victim's family's argument that the trial was ongoing in a serious offence involving murder and set aside the bail. The High Court had earlier noted that Kumar had spent over three and a half years in custody, granting bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Advocates for Kumar had also pointed to the slow pace of the trial, with only 30 out of 186 witnesses examined over three years. In July 2023, Kumar was granted a week-long interim bail on medical grounds for surgery on a torn ligament near his right knee. Earlier, in October 2022, the Rohini District Court framed charges against Kumar and 17 others under IPC Section 302 (murder) and related offences, including rioting, criminal conspiracy, and attempted murder, in connection with the killing and injuries caused during the Chhatrasal Stadium incident. With Wednesday's order, Kumar will have to return to custody while the trial continues. UNI SNG PRS
News18
an hour ago
- News18
‘Hand-Pulling Alone Doesn't Prove Outraging Modesty Without Intent': Madras HC Acquits Man
The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements. Pulling a woman's hand, though capable of shocking her sense of decency, will amount to outraging her modesty only if it is done with proven criminal intent, the Madras High Court recently said while acquitting a man convicted under Section 354 of the IPC. The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements. 'If the accused had any other intention, like pulling the victim away from the centre of a road or to avert an accident, that cannot be considered an offence of outraging modesty without detailed and clear evidence about the intention," the court observed. The decision came in an appeal filed by Murugesan against his conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. He had been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000 for allegedly pulling the hand of a mentally challenged woman from a Scheduled Caste community in May 2015. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the woman was grazing cattle near Nedunkulam Channel. It was alleged that Murugesan approached her, abused her by her caste name, and pulled her hand. The complaint was lodged by her mother (PW1) after she claimed to have learned of the incident from PW2, an eyewitness. During trial, the victim was not examined, as she was unable to respond to the court's questions due to her mental condition. The case turned largely on PW2's evidence, which the High Court later found to be inconsistent. PW2 gave differing accounts on whether she saw the accused assault the victim or arrived after he had left, and her mention of the accused beating the victim was absent from PW1's original complaint. Another witness, PW8, claimed she saw the victim crying after the incident, but her presence was not mentioned by PW2, further weakening the prosecution's case. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 604, Justice Manjula reiterated that conviction under Section 354 requires both the act of applying criminal force and a clear intent to outrage a woman's modesty. The absence of such proof entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court's conviction, acquitted Murugesan of all charges, ordered the termination of his bail bond, and directed the refund of any fine paid. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Poverty prevents people from filing appeals, says Madras High Court; orders release of life convict citing parity
Observing that there are several reasons, including poverty, that prevent people from filing appeals before higher judicial forums, the Madras High Court has ordered the release of a convict in a dacoity-cum-murder case by according him the benefit of parity with his co-convicts, who had been released from prison by an order of the Supreme Court in 2018. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan concurred with the argument of advocate R. Sankarasubbu that if the convict Balu, alias D. Balasubramanian, had approached the top court along with the three co-convicts, there was every possibility of his sentence also having been reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The judges allowed a writ petition filed by the convict's wife Indira Gandhi, seeking the release of her husband on the ground of parity. They recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, who also did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, in at least three cases, regarding the principle of extending parity to an unappealed convict. 'When the petitioner complains that her husband's constitutional right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) had been violated, we cannot shrug off our duties and ask the petitioner to... prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court,' the judges wrote and pointed out that the criminal case was from the year 2002, and that more than two decades had passed since he was convicted. 'All that we are doing is performing our constitutional duty of rendering parity between A1, A2, A4 and the petitioner's husband. Our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide and they have been granted only to enable us to do justice. This court also has the inherent power and the jurisdiction, while dealing with situations as presented in the present case, to render justice and prevent manifest injustice,' the judges said. According to the prosecution, the convicts had robbed 4.7 kg of gold and 5.5 kg of silver from a jewellery shop after killing a person who was sleeping inside the shop. Though the petitioner's husband had not committed any overt act with respect to the murder, he too was convicted under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes all members of a gang liable for punishment even if one of them had committed murder. Though the trial court had imposed only 10 years of imprisonment on the convicts, the High Court had enhanced their punishment to life imprisonment in 2010 while allowing a 2006 State appeal for enhancement of sentence. However, allowing a further appeal by three of the convicts, except the petitioner's husband, the Supreme Court had reduced their sentence to 10 years in 2018 and ordered their release. Hence, the petitioner had now approached the High Court, by way of a writ petition, seeking parity and obtained the relief.
