logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 7894 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL. RC. No. 2428 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Parties : Balu @ Radhakrishnan Versus The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Panruti, Cuddalore
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Dr. C.E. Pratab¸ Government Advocate(Crl.side)
Date of Judgment : 08-12-2025
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Not mentioned.

2. Catch Words:
- Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
- The matter was listed at the instance of the petitioner's counsel.
- The Court noted a typographical error in paragraph 6.2 of the order dated 24.11.2025.
- The erroneous paragraph is to be replaced with the corrected wording concerning the absence of a poultry farm at the crime scene.
- The corrected paragraph states that a local inspection is unnecessary as the site is now vacant.
- The Registry is directed to incorporate the corrected paragraph and issue a fresh copy of the order to the parties.
- All other provisions of the original order dated 24.11.2025 remain unchanged.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned“ at the   instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.                                                                                                                                                                                 . 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical error  has been crept in paragraph No.6.2 of the order dated 24.11.2025. The said   paragraph No.6.2 is to be replaced as follows:                                          “6.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of respondent police submitted that after the   filing of aforesaid petition by the petitioner / accused No.1, the respondent police has locally inspected the scene of crime and found that the no Poultry Farm is not in existence at present. The  petitioner / accused No.1 claims that there was no poultry farm   near the place of occurrence, but, now, the said place remains to be   a vacant place. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct a local   inspection at the scene of crime at this point of time.”    3. Registry is directed to incorporate the paragraph No.6.2. quoted above   and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.    4. In all other respects, the order dated 24.11.2025 shall remain unaltered.         
 
  CDJLawJournal