Srinivasulu vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Not Reached / Adjourned
Before:
Hon'ble Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Sanjay Karol
Stage:
FRESHLY / ADJOURNED MATTERS
Remarks:
IA Allowed [176228/2023], Notice Returnable [D:0,W:6,M:0]
Listed On:
19 Oct 2023
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
COURT NO.9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 23209/2023
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 20-09-2022 in CRLA No. 553/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
SRINIVASULU
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondent $(s)$
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.176228/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.176230/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.176229/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.176231/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)
Date: 19-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
- For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Delay condoned.
We have heard Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Noticing the age of the minor victim, we see no reason to disturb the concurrent judgment of conviction, against the <pre>petitioner.</pre>
Signature Not Verified However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Total Service Action of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the "POCSO Act") was amended only on 16.08.2019 and since the incident here is alleged to have occurred on 28.04.2018 - at pre-amendment stage, the High Court erred in noting the minimum and maximum sentence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He submits that prior to the amendment, the minimum punishment prescribed for conviction under Section 4 is seven years which may extend upto imprisonment for life.
While rejecting the challenge to the verdict of conviction, considering the submission on the issue of sentence only, let notice, returnable in six weeks, be issued to the respondent.
The petitioner is permitted to serve Dasti notice additionally, on the Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR