A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
NOMINAL INDEX
Vikas Rambal and others v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
Shiva Sankar Baba v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
P Ramkumar v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
Balamurugan v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
REPORT
1. All Directors Of Pharma Company Liable For Production Of Substandard Drugs: Madras High Court
Case Title: Vikas Rambal and others v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by directors of Sunrise International Labs for quashing a criminal proceeding initiated against them alleging that the company supplied drugs of substandard quality.
Justice G Jayachandran rejected the contention of the directors that the prosecution should be quashed against them since they were not involved in the day to day functioning of the company.
The court observed that the decision to manufacture drugs was a collective decision of the board of directors and thus all the directors will be made liable. The directors could not merely claim that they were not involved in the production of the drugs.
2. Person Not Prosecuted For Predicate Offence Can Be Prosecuted For Money Laundering Under PMLA: Madras High Court
Case Title: P Rajendran v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 435
The Madras High Court has made it clear that Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others does not preclude the Enforcement Directorate from prosecuting a person for offence of money laundering under PMLA, merely because such person was not prosecuted for the predicate offence.
The bench of Justices PN Prakash and Teeka Raman found force in the submission that while a person may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of “proceeds of crime”, such person may later help the main accused in laundering the proceeds of crime.
3. ‘Ego’ Is A Small Three Letter Word That Spoils Relationships: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mrs Karthika v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 436
While dismissing a wife’s habeas corpus petition claiming that her husband had kept their four year old son in illegal custody, the Madras High Court stressed that parents must keep aside their ‘ego’ for the welfare of the child.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition observing that the child was not in the illegal custody of the husband. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and work out her remedy for the custody of the child.
4. Madras HC Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shivshankar Baba, Says Complaint Not Accompanied By Application To Condone Delay
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 437
The Madras High Court has allowed the quashing petition filed by self-styled Godman Shivshankar Baba in a case pertaining to sexual harassment.
The Court had observed that the FIR was registered in 2021 while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2010-2011. Though the court found the allegations to be serious, since no application was filed under 473 CrPC to condone the delay, the prosecution was held to be barred by limitation.
5. Failure To Issue ASMT 10 In Respect Of Aspects Forming Subject Matter Of Proceedings Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings.
The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.
6. Visually Challenged & Print-Disabled Persons Facing “Book Famine”: Madras High Court
Case Title: P Ramkumar v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 439
The Madras High Court recently expressed concern over the “book famine” being faced by the present generation where people with print disabilities including visually challenged persons do not have access to printed works and books.
Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were hearing a plea for bringing out Braille Version of Thirukkural in Tamil and English languages to ensure that the visually challenged people could read, recite and enjoy the essence of Thirukkural.
Noting that the Central Institute of Classical Tamil had already taken steps to issue and distribute 45 Sanga Ilakkiya Noolgal including the Thirukkural in braille format to the Visually Challenged persons free of cost, the court directed the authorities to give wide publicity about the availability of the Sangam Literature in braille form so that more persons could enjoy the same.
7. Didn’t Have Maturity To Accept Rejection, Killed Her By Pouring Petrol On Her: Madras High Court Dismisses Convict’s Appeal In Murder Case
Case Title: Balamurugan v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 440
Upholding the conviction of a 28-year-old man who set a class IX student on fire in 2018 merely because she rejected his proposal, the Madras High Court has said such incidents are on the rise and only reflect the fact that man considers woman chattel and wants to own or “forcibly take her under his control” without understanding that she is a human being, who is entitled to “decide on her wishes”.
The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice Anand Venkatesh further observed:
“This loathsome act was committed by the appellant with the only motive that the girl who did not reciprocate the love proposal made by him, should not live in this world and she should not have any relationship with anybody else in this world.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
1. Madras High Court Dismisses Thirumavalavan’s Plea To Review Order Granting Permission For RSS Route March
The Madras High Court on Tuesday rejected a review application filed by Thol. Thirumavalavan, leader of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, seeking a review of the September 22nd order passed by the court granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct their route march.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the petitioner was not a party to the Writ Petitions and if he had any grievances over the order, he could very well file an appeal in the manner known to law.
2. Procure Equipment For Social Media Surveillance, Establish Special Cells At Earliest: Madras High Court to State
Stating that many individuals on Youtube are propagating “wrong and deceitful” information, the Madras High Court has said that the use of digital media “to vent ire” against constitutional functionaries and senior officers of the state and centre government “would not only be a personal attack on their privacy and prestige” but would also damage their reputation and have cascading effect on their work.
“The opinion among the public about the said officials would be blown to smithereens, which would not be in the interest of the Nation,” Justice M. Dhandapani said.
The bench further said it had directed the constitution of Special Cells so that as and when complaints are received, the same could be dealt with and “the scurrilous acts” could be nipped in the bud.
Source: https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiYWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmxpdmVsYXcuaW4vbmV3cy11cGRhdGVzL21hZHJhcy1oaWdoLWNvdXJ0LXdlZWtseS1yb3VuZHVwLW9jdG9iZXItMTctdG8tMjMtMjAyMi0yMTIzOTPSAQA?oc=5
