SAMSUDHEEN v. STATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.567 OF 2012 Hakkim …Appellant VERSUS State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2012 Sarfudheen & Anr. …Appellants VERSUS State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2011 Samsudheen …Appellant VERSUS State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent J U D G M E N T FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. In these appeals preferred by Accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4’), the Appellants herein seek to challenge the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 1 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Bench by the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2005 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 06.04.2005 in SC No.240 of 2003. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution was that PW-1 by name Alim George was a resident of Kaliba Sahib Street in Nagur Town. He was living with his three wives by name Fatima, Sayeeda (deceased) and Sameema and their mothers, his daughter Jeni, his son Jaffer Hussain, Rahana sister of his deceased wife Sayeeda, one of his friends by name Goodnameshah PW-2 and his nephew Niyaz Ahmad PW-3 were also living along with him. PW-1 stated to have worked as Imam in some mosque in Koothanallur before setting up his residence in Nagur. He also stated to have worked as Principal in the Melapalayam Arabic college. He has also worked as Imam in a mosque in Malaysia apart from serving as a teacher in a Madrasa at Udumalaipet. His guru was stated to be one Sayed Ali Sahib in Nagur. 3. There were certain allegations against PW-1 to the effect that he was indulging in certain nefarious activities, namely, Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 2 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

exploiting women folk by drugging them and also thereafter blackmailing them. At the instance of PW-23, a report appeared about the nefarious activities in a magazine called “Yevukanai”. According to the prosecution, the said report provoked the accused along with three others, two of whom were also prosecuted before the trial Court which resulted in their involvement in the present crime alleged against them. 4. It is stated that when PW-1 along with the other residents was in his house on 26.10.1996 at 4.00 p.m., the door of the house was pushed open by the Appellants-accused holding knives in their hands, they entered the house and asked for PW-1 by calling who was ‘George’ and one of the accused placed a knife on the neck of PW-3 while another accused pulled the deceased Sayeeda by her hair and yet another person advanced towards PW-1 while another accused extorted to ‘kill him’. When the accused attempted to inflict injuries on PW-1, he warded off the same which resulted in an injury to his forehand. At that point of time while deceased Sayeeda raised an alarm, the accused persons caught hold of her hands and legs and inflicted multiple injuries on her. When PW-4, the mother of the deceased came for her rescue, she was inflicted with stab injuries in which process Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 3 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

her right hand ring finger got severed. While three of the accused held the deceased Sayeeda, A-1 stated to have cut her throat which resulted in her instantaneous death. When PWs-2 and 3 tried to intervene, they were also inflicted with knife injuries. 5. In view of the milieu created, people living in and around the place of residence of PW-1, gathered around and caught hold of all the four accused-Appellants. The deceased and the injured were shifted to the hospital where PW-1’s statement Exhibit P-5 was recorded which was registered as Crime No.464 of 1996 at 6.30 p.m. at Nagur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307 and 302, IPC and the express report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate at Nagapattinam and was delivered at 00.10 hours. 6. The accused, who were held by the neighbours, were beaten by the public and were shifted to the hospital by the police personnel. It is in the above stated background that the Appellants were arrested along with the other two accused and after recording the statements of witnesses, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Apart from PWs-1 to 4, the injured eye witnesses related to the deceased, an independent witness PW-5 Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 4 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

who was employed on that day for changing the tiles of the roof of the house of PW-1 was also examined. PW-10 was the post mortem doctor and Exhibit P-15 is the post mortem certificate. PW-8 was the doctor who examined the injured eye witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9 were the certificates issued by PW-8. M.Os. 2 to 5 were the knives. The accused Appellants were arrested on 26.10.1996 at 7 p.m. i.e. on the date of occurrence. 7. PW-1 suffered one grievous injury which is a cut injury at left forearm. PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from one abrasion. PW-3 suffered two simple injuries. PW-4 suffered six cut injuries, of which injury Nos.1 to 3 were simple and injury Nos.4 to 6 were grievous. PW-32, the doctor examined the accused on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. Exhibits P-40, 41, 42 and 39 were the certificates issued by PW-32 relating to injuries sustained by A-1 to A-4, respectively. It was recorded by PW-32 to the effect that the accused Appellants informed PW-32 that they were beaten up by the public. Exhibit P-29 is the FSL report confirming presence of blood in seven items. Exhibit P-30 disclosed the blood group of deceased as ‘O’ group. It also revealed that the blood found in one of the knives was Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 5 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

disintegrated. PW-10, in her evidence, stated that the four knives marked in the case could have caused the injuries sustained by deceased as well as by other injured persons. 8. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses apart from marking Exhibits P-1 to P-42. M.Os.1 to 11 the material objects were also placed before the Court. M.Os.2 to 5 were the knives which were used in the crime. M.Os.7 to 11 were the dress worn by the deceased Sayeeda. M.O.6 was the blood stained cement flooring while M.O.7 was the cement flooring without blood stain. The trial Court reached the conclusion that all the charges framed against A-5 and A-6 were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, they were acquitted. It also held that the charges framed under Section 120B IPC against A-1 to A-4, that the charge framed against A-3 under Section 324, IPC (one count) and the charge framed against A-4 under Section 326, IPC were not proved. They were accordingly acquitted of the said charges. It, however, found all the Appellants-accused guilty of the charges under Section 449, IPC and A-1 was found guilty of charges under Section 307, IPC and 302, IPC as well as charge under Section 324, IPC found proved against A-3 and A-4. The Appellants were Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 6 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for the charge found proved against them under Section 449, IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for three years for an offence under Section 307, IPC. A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo three years RI for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC and A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC. A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo six months RI for the offence under Section 324, IPC. 9. In the light of the long period during which they were in jail in other cases and since it was pleaded that there was none to pay any fine on their behalf, the trial Court refrained from imposing any fine on Appellants-accused. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court the Appellants are before us. 10. We heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Tulsi in his Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 7 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

submissions focused mainly on the sentence aspect apparently finding that the accused Appellants were apprehended at the crime spot and caught red-handed. We also do not find anything wrong in the approach of the learned Senior Counsel in making the submissions as above in the peculiar facts of this case. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that while four knives M.Os. 2 to 5 were marked in the case, only one knife was sent for scientific examination in which though blood was noted as per Exhibit P-30 the blood found was disintegrated. The learned Senior Counsel would, therefore, contend that it will have to be proceeded on the footing that only one knife was used in the crime. By pointing out the said factor, learned Senior Counsel contended that it will have a serious bearing on the charge under Section 109, IPC as well as invocation of Section 149, IPC could not have been made. 11. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that the intention of A-1 who was armed with a knife and the others can only be attributed with knowledge, in which event, at best the conviction can be only under Section 304 Part II, IPC and not for the offences for which they were convicted. To strengthen the above submission, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 8 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

injuries found on the body of the deceased under Exhibit P-15 also disclosed that other than the injury on the neck which was attributed to A-1, there was no other injury on any other vital part of the body of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel in his submissions, therefore, contended that at best the other accused can only be attributed with the possibility of over enthusiasm and exaggeration and, therefore, taking the above factors into account, it should be held that the sentence already suffered should be held to be sufficient. 12. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the accused were arrested on 26.10.1996 i.e. on the date of occurrence, that while A-1 and A-2 were granted bail on 05.06.1997, A-3 and A-4 were granted bail on 26.05.1997. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that A-1 and A-2 were subsequently arrested in connection with the Coimbatore bomb blast case on 28.03.1998 while A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 24.10.1998 and 16.11.1998, respectively. The learned Senior Counsel contended that while A- 1 was convicted in the Coimbatore bomb blast case for seven years and he has already suffered the sentence, A-2 was sentenced to life imprisonment. As far as A-3 is concerned, it was submitted that he was acquitted in the bomb blast case and no Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 9 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

further appeal was filed against the said acquittal. A-4 was stated to have been imposed the sentence of 10 years and he is undergoing the sentence. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiterated his submission that if the Appellants’ intention to kill was not there and in the absence of Sections 109 and 149, IPC being applied, at best, it can only be said that the knowledge of the Appellants could have been only to the extent of likelihood of death of the deceased and, therefore, 304 Part II, IPC can only be applied. 13. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for some of the Appellants submitted that while according to the case of the prosecution, seven persons were involved in the crime, only four were caught red handed, that the clothes worn by the accused were not recovered and sent for serological test and in the circumstances when PW-1 was not done to death and the deceased came to be killed, no intention can be attributed to the killing of the deceased as against the accused. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that the offence of murder cannot be affirmed as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 10 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Maharashtra - 2013 (6) SCC 770 and Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa and others - 2012 (3) SCC 221 in support of his submissions. 14. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 submitted that indisputably he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and when the said plea was raised before the High Court, the High Court declined to grant the relief even though as a matter of fact it was recorded that the age of the Appellant on the date of the occurrence was 17 years and 9 months holding that he was not a juvenile under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 as per the law that was prevailing on that date. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that having regard to the development of law as held in the subsequent decisions in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another - 2009 (13) SCC 211, Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2010 (15) SCC 83 and Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 (11) SCC 193 even if the conviction of the said Appellant is to be confirmed, he is entitled to the benefit in the matter of sentence as provided under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 11 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

15. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for the State in his submissions pointed out that the contention based on the FSL report on the use of one knife alone cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, at the time when the accused were apprehended on the spot all the four knives were recovered with the aid of mahazar witnesses which were duly placed before the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon the eye witness account of PWs 1 to 4 who referred to the use of all the four knives indiscriminately on the spot by the four accused which evidence was further supported by the various injuries sustained by those witnesses some of which were grievous in nature apart from the evidence of the independent witness PW-5. Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that the deceased having suffered as many as 14 injuries all over her body, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend that only one knife could have been used which was attributed to A-1. Learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submitted that invoking Section 302 read along with Sections 109 and 149 was rightly and correctly applied for which they were ultimately convicted. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that all the accused entered the house of PW-1 fully planned with an Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 12 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

intention to kill, armed with weapons individually and, therefore, having regard to their involvement in the occurrence in which one died while two others were seriously injured apart from two others who suffered minor injuries and, therefore, there is no scope for any leniency in the matter of sentence. 16. Having heard the respective submissions of the learned counsel, we are also convinced that there is no scope for reducing the sentence as was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. As far as the submission made based on single knife is concerned, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, it is a case where the accused were apprehended on the spot and the recovery of the weapons was also carried out at the time when they were apprehended. The said factor cannot be disputed in as much as apart from the eye witness account of injured witnesses PWs-1 to 4, the accused themselves were examined by the doctor PW-32 on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. The injuries on their bodies were noted under Exhibits P-39 to 42 and according to PW-32, at that point of time the accused themselves stated that they were thrashed by the public which is in tune with the case of the prosecution. Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 13 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

17. It is also not in dispute that recovered knives were placed before the trial Court and marked as M.Os.2 to 5. That apart, PW-10, the post mortem doctor in her certificate Exhibit P-15 confirmed the multiple knife injuries found on the body of the deceased. While one of the injuries was on the neck which was attributed to A-1, there were other injuries on the vital parts of the body as well as other parts numbering 13 and all of them were incised wounds ranging from 2cm x 1cm to 15cm x 7cm. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend that only one knife was used to cause so many injuries on the body of the deceased. 18. That apart, according to PW-8, the doctor who examined PWs-1 to 4 and issued Exhibits P-6 to P-9 certifying the injuries. Exhibits P-6 to P-9 revealed that PW-1 suffered one grievous injury, PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from one abrasion, PW-3 suffered two simple injuries and PW-4 suffered six cut injuries of which 1 to 3 were simple and 4 to 6 were grievous. One of the injuries suffered by PW-4 resulted in severance of her right hand ring finger. When such extensive injuries were sustained by the injured eye witnesses, it is too late in the day for the Appellant to contend and for the Court to accept that only Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 14 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

one knife was used and the placement of the other three knives could not have been relied upon. The trial Court as well as the High Court rightly rejected the above submissions as such overwhelming evidence was available on record to support the case of the prosecution as regards the use of multiple weapons in the crime committed by the Appellants. 19. Once the said contention of the Appellants is rejected, the other co1ntentions, namely, that there was no scope to invoke Sections 109 and 149, IPC would also fall to the ground. If that is the outcome of the above discussion, there is no scope to find fault with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court having convicted the Appellants for the offences found proved against them for which the sentence came to be imposed. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the Appellants to hold that only Section 304 Part II, IPC can be applied and a lesser punishment should be imposed. Having regard to the extensive use of the weapons by the accused in the process of killing of the deceased and the inflicting of the injuries on PWs-1 to 4, we do not find any scope to show any concession in the matter of punishment and consequently the said submission stands rejected. In the light of our above conclusion, Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 15 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

we do not find any scope to refer to any of the decisions relied upon for reduction of sentence. 20. As far as the submission made by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who was A-1 before the trial Court and as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel, we do find support in the records placed before us wherein in the reply filed on behalf of the State to the application filed for filing additional documents, it is stated as under in paragraph (vi): “ The High Court observed that as per the contentions of the petitioner, he was aged 17 years and 9 months at the time of commission of the offence. It is pertinent to mention here that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of the 1986 Act in the present case, thereby leading to the finding that since the petitioner has attained the age of 17 years and 9 months on the date of commission of the offence, hence he was not a juvenile as per the provisions of the Act of 1986.” 21. Once, therefore, it is shown that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011, who was A-1, was only 17 years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence, the decision reported in Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) applies wherein in the similar circumstances it was held as under: Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 16 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

“ 6. Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007”) provides the procedure as to how a case of a juvenile who is in conflict with law should be disposed of. The same reads as follows: “ 98. Disposed off cases of juveniles in conflict with law- The State Government or as the case may be the Board may, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a person or a juvenile in conflict with law, determine his juvenility in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rule 12 of these Rules and pass an appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 64 of the Act, for the immediate release of the juvenile in conflict with law whose period of detention or imprisonment has exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act. 7. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum period of detention as provided for under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith.” 22. Having regard to the said legal position, the very same consequences set out in the said decision should apply to the case of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 17 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

has already suffered more than the maximum period of detention as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act. The said appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court’s order dated 18.07.2011. Therefore, while confirming his conviction as per the judgment impugned in this appeal, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence already undergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction. Therefore, he shall not be detained any more in this case unless his detention is warranted in any other case. Criminal appeal No. 1410 stand disposed of on the above terms. 23. The appeals filed by the other Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2012 by A-4 and Criminal Appeal No.568 of 2012 by A- 2 and A-3 stand dismissed. .……….…………………………………..J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla] ……… ..…………………………………..J. [Shiva Kirti Singh] August 06, 2014 New Delhi. Crl.A.No.567/2012 with 18 of 18 Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

× CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC. ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No. 567/2012 HAKKIM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1410/2011 [SAMSUDHEEN V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICE T.N.] Crl.A. No. 568/2012 [SARFUDHEEN & ANR. V. STATE TR. BY SUPDT. OF POLICE] Date : 06/08/2014 These appeals were called on for pronoun cement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv. Mr. anis Mohammad, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. L. K. Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. ***** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla pronounced the judgment of the Court for a Bench comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2014.08.0913:33:41 IST For the reasons recorded in the signedReason: reportable judgment, the appeals filed by accused PAGE NO. 1 OF 2CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC. Nos. 2-4 being Criminal Appeal Nos. 567 of 2012 and

568 of 2012 are dismissed. Criminal Appeal 1410 stands disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment. [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]PAGE NO. 2 OF 2CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC. Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.567 OF 2012Hakkim ...Appellant VERSUSState Represented byDeputy Superintendent of Police ...Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2012Sarfudheen & Anr. ...Appellants VERSUSState Represented byDeputy Superintendent of Police ...Respondent & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2011Samsudheen ...Appellant VERSUSState Represented byDeputy Superintendent of Police ...Respondent JUDGMENTFAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.1. In these appeals preferred by Accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafterreferred to as `A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4'), the Appellants herein seekto challenge the judgment passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Bench by the

PAGE NO. 1 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.impugned judgment dated 23.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.359of 2005 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by thelearned Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 06.04.2005 in SCNo.240 of 2003.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecutionwas that PW-1 by name Alim George was a resident of KalibaSahib Street in Nagur Town. He was living with his three wives byname Fatima, Sayeeda (deceased) and Sameema and theirmothers, his daughter Jeni, his son Jaffer Hussain, Rahana sisterof his deceased wife Sayeeda, one of his friends by nameGoodnameshah PW-2 and his nephew Niyaz Ahmad PW-3 werealso living along with him. PW-1 stated to have worked as Imam insome mosque in Koothanallur before setting up his residence inNagur. He also stated to have worked as Principal in theMelapalayam Arabic college. He has also worked as Imam in amosque in Malaysia apart from serving as a teacher in a Madrasaat Udumalaipet. His guru was stated to be one Sayed Ali Sahib inNagur.3. There were certain allegations against PW-1 to the effect thathe was indulging in certain nefarious activities, namely, exploitingwomen folk by drugging them and also thereafter blackmailingPAGE NO. 2 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.them. At the instance of PW-23, a report appeared about thenefarious activities in a magazine called "Yevukanai". According tothe prosecution, the said report provoked the accused along withthree others, two of whom were also prosecuted before the trialCourt which resulted in their involvement in the present crimealleged against them.

4. It is stated that when PW-1 along with the other residentswas in his house on 26.10.1996 at 4.00 p.m., the door of thehouse was pushed open by the Appellants-accused holding knivesin their hands, they entered the house and asked for PW-1 bycalling who was `George' and one of the accused placed a knife onthe neck of PW-3 while another accused pulled the deceasedSayeeda by her hair and yet another person advanced towardsPW-1 while another accused extorted to `kill him'. When theaccused attempted to inflict injuries on PW-1, he warded off thesame which resulted in an injury to his forehand. At that point oftime while deceased Sayeeda raised an alarm, the accused personscaught hold of her hands and legs and inflicted multiple injurieson her. When PW-4, the mother of the deceased came for herrescue, she was inflicted with stab injuries in which process herright hand ring finger got severed. While three of the accused heldthe deceased Sayeeda, A-1 stated to have cut her throat whichPAGE NO. 3 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.resulted in her instantaneous death. When PWs-2 and 3 tried tointervene, they were also inflicted with knife injuries.5. In view of the milieu created, people living in and around theplace of residence of PW-1, gathered around and caught hold of allthe four accused-Appellants. The deceased and the injured wereshifted to the hospital where PW-1's statement Exhibit P-5 wasrecorded which was registered as Crime No.464 of 1996 at 6.30p.m. at Nagur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324,307 and 302, IPC and the express report was forwarded to theJudicial Magistrate at Nagapattinam and was delivered at 00.10hours.6. The accused, who were held by the neighbours, were beatenby the public and were shifted to the hospital by the policepersonnel. It is in the above stated background that the Appellantswere arrested along with the other two accused and after recording

the statements of witnesses, the charge-sheet came to be filed.Apart from PWs-1 to 4, the injured eye witnesses related to thedeceased, an independent witness PW-5 who was employed on thatday for changing the tiles of the roof of the house of PW-1 was alsoexamined. PW-10 was the post mortem doctor and Exhibit P-15 isthe post mortem certificate. PW-8 was the doctor who examinedPAGE NO. 4 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.the injured eye witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-8and P-9 were the certificates issued by PW-8. M.Os. 2 to 5 werethe knives. The accused Appellants were arrested on 26.10.1996 at7 p.m. i.e. on the date of occurrence.7. PW-1 suffered one grievous injury which is a cut injury at leftforearm. PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from oneabrasion. PW-3 suffered two simple injuries. PW-4 suffered six cutinjuries, of which injury Nos.1 to 3 were simple and injury Nos.4 to6 were grievous. PW-32, the doctor examined the accused on27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. Exhibits P-40, 41, 42 and 39 were thecertificates issued by PW-32 relating to injuries sustained by A-1to A-4, respectively. It was recorded by PW-32 to the effect thatthe accused Appellants informed PW-32 that they were beaten upby the public. Exhibit P-29 is the FSL report confirming presenceof blood in seven items. Exhibit P-30 disclosed the blood group ofdeceased as `O' group. It also revealed that the blood found in oneof the knives was disintegrated. PW-10, in her evidence, statedthat the four knives marked in the case could have caused theinjuries sustained by deceased as well as by other injured persons.8. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 34witnesses apart from marking Exhibits P-1 to P-42. M.Os.1 to 11PAGE NO. 5 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.

the material objects were also placed before the Court. M.Os.2 to5 were the knives which were used in the crime. M.Os.7 to 11 werethe dress worn by the deceased Sayeeda. M.O.6 was the bloodstained cement flooring while M.O.7 was the cement flooringwithout blood stain. The trial Court reached the conclusion thatall the charges framed against A-5 and A-6 were not proved beyondall reasonable doubts and, therefore, they were acquitted. It alsoheld that the charges framed under Section 120B IPC against A-1to A-4, that the charge framed against A-3 under Section 324,IPC (one count) and the charge framed against A-4 under Section326, IPC were not proved. They were accordingly acquitted of thesaid charges. It, however, found all the Appellants-accused guiltyof the charges under Section 449, IPC and A-1 was found guilty ofcharges under Section 307, IPC and 302, IPC as well as chargeunder Section 324, IPC found proved against A-3 and A-4. TheAppellants were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years forthe charge found proved against them under Section 449, IPC. A-1was sentenced to undergo RI for three years for an offence underSection 307, IPC. A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo three yearsRI for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC.A-1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offenceunder Section 302, IPC and A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergoPAGE NO. 6 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read withSection 109, IPC. A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo sixmonths RI for the offence under Section 324, IPC.9. In the light of the long period during which they were in jailin other cases and since it was pleaded that there was none to payany fine on their behalf, the trial Court refrained from imposingany fine on Appellants-accused. By the impugned judgment theDivision Bench of the High Court having confirmed the convictionand sentence imposed by the trial Court the Appellants are before

us.10. We heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learnedSenior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Subramonium Prasad,learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Tulsi in hissubmissions focused mainly on the sentence aspect apparentlyfinding that the accused Appellants were apprehended at the crimespot and caught red-handed. We also do not find anything wrongin the approach of the learned Senior Counsel in making thesubmissions as above in the peculiar facts of this case. In supportof his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out thatwhile four knives M.Os. 2 to 5 were marked in the case, only oneknife was sent for scientific examination in which though bloodPAGE NO. 7 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.was noted as per Exhibit P-30 the blood found was disintegrated.The learned Senior Counsel would, therefore, contend that it willhave to be proceeded on the footing that only one knife was usedin the crime. By pointing out the said factor, learned SeniorCounsel contended that it will have a serious bearing on thecharge under Section 109, IPC as well as invocation of Section149, IPC could not have been made.11. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that theintention of A-1 who was armed with a knife and the others canonly be attributed with knowledge, in which event, at best theconviction can be only under Section 304 Part II, IPC and not forthe offences for which they were convicted. To strengthen theabove submission, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that theinjuries found on the body of the deceased under Exhibit P-15 alsodisclosed that other than the injury on the neck which wasattributed to A-1, there was no other injury on any other vital partof the body of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel in hissubmissions, therefore, contended that at best the other accused

can only be attributed with the possibility of over enthusiasm andexaggeration and, therefore, taking the above factors into account,it should be held that the sentence already suffered should be heldto be sufficient.PAGE NO. 8 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.12. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the accused werearrested on 26.10.1996 i.e. on the date of occurrence, that whileA-1 and A-2 were granted bail on 05.06.1997, A-3 and A-4 weregranted bail on 26.05.1997. The learned Senior Counsel alsosubmitted that A-1 and A-2 were subsequently arrested inconnection with the Coimbatore bomb blast case on 28.03.1998while A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 24.10.1998 and 16.11.1998,respectively. The learned Senior Counsel contended that while A-1was convicted in the Coimbatore bomb blast case for seven yearsand he has already suffered the sentence, A-2 was sentenced to lifeimprisonment. As far as A-3 is concerned, it was submitted thathe was acquitted in the bomb blast case and no further appeal wasfiled against the said acquittal. A-4 was stated to have beenimposed the sentence of 10 years and he is undergoing thesentence. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiterated hissubmission that if the Appellants' intention to kill was not thereand in the absence of Sections 109 and 149, IPC being applied, atbest, it can only be said that the knowledge of the Appellants couldhave been only to the extent of likelihood of death of the deceasedand, therefore, 304 Part II, IPC can only be applied.13. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel who appearedfor some of the Appellants submitted that while according to thePAGE NO. 9 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.case of the prosecution, seven persons were involved in the crime,only four were caught red handed, that the clothes worn by theaccused were not recovered and sent for serological test and in the

circumstances when PW-1 was not done to death and the deceasedcame to be killed, no intention can be attributed to the killing ofthe deceased as against the accused. The learned Senior Counsel,therefore, contended that the offence of murder cannot be affirmedas confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the HighCourt. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions reportedin Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra - 2013 (6)SCC 770 and Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa and others - 2012(3) SCC 221 in support of his submissions.14. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellant inCriminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 submitted that indisputably hewas a juvenile on the date of occurrence and when the said pleawas raised before the High Court, the High Court declined to grantthe relief even though as a matter of fact it was recorded that theage of the Appellant on the date of the occurrence was 17 yearsand 9 months holding that he was not a juvenile under theprovisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 as per the law thatwas prevailing on that date. The learned Senior Counsel pointedout that having regard to the development of law as held in thePAGE NO. 10 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.subsequent decisions in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan andanother - 2009 (13) SCC 211, Ajay Kumar v. State of MadhyaPradesh - 2010 (15) SCC 83 and Jitendra Singh alias BabbooSingh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 (11) SCC193 even if the conviction of the said Appellant is to be confirmed,he is entitled to the benefit in the matter of sentence as providedunder the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.15. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for the State in his submissions pointed out that thecontention based on the FSL report on the use of one knife alonecannot be accepted, inasmuch as, at the time when the accusedwere apprehended on the spot all the four knives were recovered

with the aid of mahazar witnesses which were duly placed beforethe Court. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied uponthe eye witness account of PWs 1 to 4 who referred to the use of allthe four knives indiscriminately on the spot by the four accusedwhich evidence was further supported by the various injuriessustained by those witnesses some of which were grievous innature apart from the evidence of the independent witness PW-5.Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that thedeceased having suffered as many as 14 injuries all over her body,it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend that only onePAGE NO. 11 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.knife could have been used which was attributed to A-1. LearnedAdditional Advocate General, therefore, submitted that invokingSection 302 read along with Sections 109 and 149 was rightly andcorrectly applied for which they were ultimately convicted. LearnedAdditional Advocate General contended that all the accusedentered the house of PW-1 fully planned with an intention to kill,armed with weapons individually and, therefore, having regard totheir involvement in the occurrence in which one died while twoothers were seriously injured apart from two others who sufferedminor injuries and, therefore, there is no scope for any leniency inthe matter of sentence.16. Having heard the respective submissions of the learnedcounsel, we are also convinced that there is no scope for reducingthe sentence as was submitted by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral. As far as the submission made based on single knife isconcerned, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, it is a case where the accused were apprehended on thespot and the recovery of the weapons was also carried out at thetime when they were apprehended. The said factor cannot bedisputed in as much as apart from the eye witness account ofinjured witnesses PWs-1 to 4, the accused themselves were

examined by the doctor PW-32 on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. ThePAGE NO. 12 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.injuries on their bodies were noted under Exhibits P-39 to 42 andaccording to PW-32, at that point of time the accused themselvesstated that they were thrashed by the public which is in tune withthe case of the prosecution.17. It is also not in dispute that recovered knives were placedbefore the trial Court and marked as M.Os.2 to 5. That apart,PW-10, the post mortem doctor in her certificate Exhibit P-15confirmed the multiple knife injuries found on the body of thedeceased. While one of the injuries was on the neck which wasattributed to A-1, there were other injuries on the vital parts of thebody as well as other parts numbering 13 and all of them wereincised wounds ranging from 2cm x 1cm to 15cm x 7cm.Therefore, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend thatonly one knife was used to cause so many injuries on the body ofthe deceased.18. That apart, according to PW-8, the doctor who examinedPWs-1 to 4 and issued Exhibits P-6 to P-9 certifying the injuries.Exhibits P-6 to P-9 revealed that PW-1 suffered one grievousinjury, PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from oneabrasion, PW-3 suffered two simple injuries and PW-4 suffered sixcut injuries of which 1 to 3 were simple and 4 to 6 were grievous.PAGE NO. 13 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.One of the injuries suffered by PW-4 resulted in severance of herright hand ring finger. When such extensive injuries weresustained by the injured eye witnesses, it is too late in the day forthe Appellant to contend and for the Court to accept that only oneknife was used and the placement of the other three knives couldnot have been relied upon. The trial Court as well as the High

Court rightly rejected the above submissions as suchoverwhelming evidence was available on record to support the caseof the prosecution as regards the use of multiple weapons in thecrime committed by the Appellants.19. Once the said contention of the Appellants is rejected, theother co1ntentions, namely, that there was no scope to invokeSections 109 and 149, IPC would also fall to the ground. If that isthe outcome of the above discussion, there is no scope to find faultwith the ultimate conclusion of the trial court having convicted theAppellants for the offences found proved against them for whichthe sentence came to be imposed. We, therefore, do not find anysubstance in the submission made on behalf of the Appellants tohold that only Section 304 Part II, IPC can be applied and a lesserpunishment should be imposed. Having regard to the extensiveuse of the weapons by the accused in the process of killing of thedeceased and the inflicting of the injuries on PWs-1 to 4, we do notPAGE NO. 14 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.find any scope to show any concession in the matter ofpunishment and consequently the said submission standsrejected. In the light of our above conclusion, we do not find anyscope to refer to any of the decisions relied upon for reduction ofsentence.20. As far as the submission made by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learnedSenior Counsel on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal AppealNo.1410 of 2011 who was A-1 before the trial Court and as rightlycontended by learned Senior Counsel, we do find support in therecords placed before us wherein in the reply filed on behalf of theState to the application filed for filing additional documents, it isstated as under in paragraph (vi): "The High Court observed that as per the contentions of the petitioner, he was aged 17 years and 9 months at the time of commission of the offence. It is pertinent to mention here that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of the 1986 Act in the present case, thereby

leading to the finding that since the petitioner has attained the age of 17 years and 9 months on the date of commission of the offence, hence he was not a juvenile as per the provisions of the Act of 1986."21. Once, therefore, it is shown that the Appellant in CriminalAppeal No.1410 of 2011, who was A-1, was only 17 years and 9months on the date of the occurrence, the decision reported inAjay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) applies whereinPAGE NO. 15 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.in the similar circumstances it was held as under: "6. Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007") provides the procedure as to how a case of a juvenile who is in conflict with law should be disposed of. The same reads as follows: "98. Disposed off cases of juveniles in conflict with law- The State Government or as the case may be the Board may, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a person or a juvenile in conflict with law, determine his juvenility in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rule 12 of these Rules and pass an appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 64 of the Act, for the immediate release of the juvenile in conflict with law whose period of detention or imprisonment has exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act. 7. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum period of detention as provided for under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith."22. Having regard to the said legal position, the very sameconsequences set out in the said decision should apply to the caseof the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who hasPAGE NO. 16 OF 17CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2012 ETC.

already suffered more than the maximum period of detention asprovided under the Juvenile Justice Act. The said appellant wasenlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 18.07.2011. Therefore,while confirming his conviction as per the judgment impugned inthis appeal, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of theprovisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence alreadyundergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction.Therefore, he shall not be detained any more in this case unlesshis detention is warranted in any other case. Criminal appeal No.1410 stand disposed of on the above terms.23. The appeals filed by the other Appellants in Criminal AppealNo.567 of 2012 by A-4 and Criminal Appeal No.568 of 2012 by A-2and A-3 stand dismissed. ....................................................J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla] ....................................................J. [Shiva Kirti Singh]August 06, 2014New Delhi.PAGE NO. 17 OF 17

¨ ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 567/2012 HAKKIM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 568/2012 [SARFUDHEEN & ANR. V. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE] (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1410/2011 [SAMSUDHEEN V.S TATE REP. BY DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE, T.N.] (With Office Report) Date : 16/07/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Appellant(s) in all appeals Mr. K.t.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv. Mr. Anis Mohammad, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Kamal, Adv. Mr. L. K. Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) in all appeals Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. A. Santhakumaran, Adv. Mr. Rajit Dhalal, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2014.07.1916:50:47 ISTReason: [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2011 SAMSUDHEEN ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE RE. BY DY. SUPTD. POLICE TN ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT This is an appeal by way of Special Leave Granted vide this Court's Order dated 18 th July, 2011. Sole Respondent (State) is represented through Mr. M. Y. Kanna, Advocate original Records of the High Court as well as Trial Court have not been received in the matter despite reminder. As the matter is on board alongwith connected matter s, hence this office Report. DATED this the 16 th day of August, 2013. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : 1. M/s. Mahalaxmi Balaji & Co., Advs. 2. Mr. M. Y. Kanna, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C1/ss

ªITEM NO.2 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP.NO. 24982/2012 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 568 OF 2012SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 08/04/2013 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv. Mr. Stalin Selvamani, Adv. Mr. L.K. Pandey, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. A. Santha Kumaran, Adv. Ms. Sasi Kala, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for bail is rejected. It is informed that the appeal is running on board for hearing. The Counsel is at liberty to request the concerned Court to give priority of hearing of this matter as it is informed that the petitioner has already served more than 13 years. (NAVEEN KUMAR) (SNEH BALA MEHRA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¨ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP.NO. 24982/2012 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 568 OF 2012SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 01/04/2013 This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ratnakar Das,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan,Adv. Mr. Anis Mohammad,Adv. Mr. Stalin Selvamani,Adv. Mr. L.K. Pandey,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar,Sr.AAG Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Ms. Sasi Kala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 08.04.2013. |(NARENDRA PRASAD) | |(RENUKA SADANA) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER | 1

pITEM NO.45 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and bail andpermission to file additional documents and de-tagging officereport)WITHSLP(Crl) NO. 5978 of 2010(With with appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and bail and exemptinfrom filing C/C of the impugned order and office report)Date: 16/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr. Bhahadur Sha, Adv. Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. B.Balaji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file additional documents along with Annexure 'A' in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 61 of 2010 is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. List the matters after two weeks.(Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master

BITEM NO.43 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail,exemption from filing O.T. and bail and andpermission to file additional documents and de-tagging and officeeeport)WITHSLP(Crl) NO. 5978 of 2010(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and bail and exemptionfrom filing C/C of the impugned order and office report)Date: 10/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. B.Balaji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R A letter has been circulated by the advocate for the petitioners seeking time on the ground of illness of the arguing counsel. List the matters after four weeks. (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master

®ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. No.15984/2011 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgment and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(For bail and office report) WITHCRL.M.P. No.14972 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5978/2010(For bail and office report)Date:02/01/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed,Sr.Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. Mr. S.I. Abdul Kalam B.,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. for Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by the counsel for the respondent, list this matter on Monday, 9th January, 2012. (A.S. BISHT) (INDU SATIJA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

àITEM NO.3 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. No.15984 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(For bail and office report) WITHCRL.M.P. No.14972 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5978/2010(For bail and office report)Date:05/12/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. Akshat Hansaria,Adv. for Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters after Christmas holidays. (A.S. BISHT) (INDU SATIJA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

úITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. No.15984 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(For bail and office report) WITHCRL.M.P. No.14972 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5978/2010(For bail and office report)Date:21/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. A. Prasanna Venkat,Adv. Mr. Akshat Hansaria,Adv. Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. for Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated, the matter is adjourned by two weeks for filing additional affidavit. (A.S. BISHT) (INDU SATIJA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. No.15984 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(For bail and office report) WITHCRL.M.P. No.14972 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5978/2010(For bail and office report)Date:08/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. Mr. S.I. Abdul Kalam Bagadur,Adv. Mr. Balaji G.,Adv. For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. for Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated, the matter is adjourned by two weeks for filing reply to the bail application. (A.S. BISHT) (INDU SATIJA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRL.M.P.No.15984/2011 INPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 23/09/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.I.A.K. Bagadur Sha, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kuamr Singh, Adv. For M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. For Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioner has circulated a letter praying for adjournment on the ground that he is indisposed. As prayed, adjourned for two weeks. (Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr.P.A. Court Master

XMentioned Matter COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. No.15984/2011 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(For bail) WITHCRL.M.P. No.14972/2010 in SLP(Crl.) No.5978/2010(For bail)Date: 06/09/2011 These matters were mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. (N.P.) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the applications for bail after two weeks. (A.S. BISHT) (SHASHI BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Mentioning slips are enclosed)

DMentioned Matter COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order(s) in dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/200 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail)WITHS.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5978/2010Date: 19/08/2011 These Petitions were mentionied today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. (mentioned by) For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after two weeks. (A.S. BISHT) (RENU SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

DMentioned Matter COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order(s) in dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/200 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail)WITHS.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5978/2010Date: 19/08/2011 These Petitions were mentionied today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. (mentioned by) For M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after two weeks. (A.S. BISHT) (RENU SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

bITEM NO.64 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5940/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, bail,exemption fromfiling c/c of the impugned order, permission to file additionaldocuments and office report)Date: 11/07/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftaf Ahmed,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. Mr. Bahadur Sha,Adv. for M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajat Khattry,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter on next Monday i.e. 18th July, 2011. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¨ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5940/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,bail,exemption fromfiling c/c of the impugned order,permission to file additionaldocuments and office report )Date: 08/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Ms.Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr.S.Thananjayan, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated, the matter isadjourned. List the matter after summer vacation. (G.V.Ramana) (Neeru Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master

¼ITEM NO.MM-A COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCrl.M.P.No.1648/2011 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5940/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(Appln.for de-tagging the SLP)Date: 25/02/2011 This Petition was mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mrs.Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv.(Mentioned by) Mr.G.Balaji, Adv. For M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the CRLMP on 11.03.2011. (G.V.Ramana) (Neeru Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master (Mentioned slip enclosed)

6ITEM NO.5 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5978/2010SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With SLP(Crl.)No.5940/2010Date: 31/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Parani,Adv. M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. counsel for the petitioner in SLP(Crl)No.5978/2010 seeks two weeks time a a last chance for furnishing spare copy of the pleadings. If furnished, issue notice. Await return of notice. Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to serve notice on the standing counsel for the State. Permission granted. Application for detagging may be processed. List the matters on 28.2.2011. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar

@ITEM NO.7 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5940/2010SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,bail,exemption from filingc/c of the impugned order,permission to file additional documentsand office report ))With SLP(Crl)No.5978/2010.Date: 14/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioner has not furnished spare copy of the pleadings even now. However, granted two weeks time as a last chance for furnishing spare copy of the pleadings. List the matters on 31.1.2011. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar

¬ITEM NO.8 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5978/2010SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With SLP(Crl.)No.5940/2010Date: 14/12/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Files not received. List the matters on 14.1.2011. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar

\ITEM NO.8 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5978/2010SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,bail,exemption fromfiling c/c of the impugned order and office report ))Date: 10/11/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv. Mr.G.Balaji,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks time as alast chance for furnishing the spare copy. If spare copy isfurnished, issue notice. Await return of notice. List the matter on 14.12.2010. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB

:ITEM NO.11 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5978/2010SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,bail,exemption fromfiling c/c of the impugned order and office report ))Date: 07/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks time aslast chance for furnishing the spare copy. If steps are taken,issue notice. Await return of notice. List the matter on 10.11.2010. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB

ÞITEM NO.13 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5940/2010SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,bail,exemption from filingc/c of the impugned order,permission to file additional documentsand office report ))Date: 19/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioner granted two weeks time for furnishing spare copy of the pleadings. If furnished, issue notice thereafter. Await return of notice. List the matter on 7.10.2010. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar

LITEM NO.27 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 6979(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With CRL.M.P. No.6979/2010 for c/delay in filing SLPand office report)Date: 16/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. for M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that notice has been issued by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.61/2010, which is arising out of the same judgment impugned in this special leave petition. Issue notice on the special leave petition as also on the application for condonation of delay. List along with SLP(Crl.) No.61/2010. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

jITEM NO.28 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 7458(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With CRL.M.P. NO.7458/2010 for c/delay in filing SLPand office report)Date: 16/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. for M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that notice has been issued by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.61/2010, which is arising out of the same judgment impugned in this special leave petition. Issue notice on the special leave petition as also on the application for condonation of delay. List along with SLP(Crl.) No.61/2010. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¸ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 6979(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With CRL.M.P. No.6979/2010 for c/delay in filing SLPand office report)Date: 09/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. for M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter is adjourned by one week in view of the letter circulated. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

´ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 7458(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLANo.359/2005 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)(With CRL.M.P. No.7458/2010 for c/delay in filing SLPand office report)Date: 09/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. for M/S. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter is adjourned by one week in view of the letter circulated. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

`ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)SAMSUDHEEN Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE RE. BY DY. SUPTND. POLICER TN Respondent(s)CRLMP.NO(s). 7458(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 12/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S.CHAUHANFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Gautam, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As requested, list after four weeks. (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) Court Master Assistant Registrar

BITEM NO.57 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 6979(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SARFUDHEEN & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 05/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.....(proxy), Adv. For For M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after two weeks. (R.K.Dhawan) (Veera Verma) AR-cum-PS Assistant Registrar

XITEM NO.14 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP.NO. 288/2010 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)No(s).61/2010HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report )Date: 19/03/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASADFor Petitioner(s) Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. For M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for bail is rejected. The accused is in custody since 1996. Post the appeal forhearing in the 2nd week of August, 2010. (R.K.Dhawan) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master

öITEM NO.8 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP.NO. 288/2010 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s).61/2010(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No.359/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report )Date: 15/02/2010 This Petition was called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Ms.Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr.G.Balaji, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Ms.Promila, Adv. For Mr.S.Thananjayan, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As requested on behalf of respondent, four weeks'time is granted for filing vakalatnama and to get instructions. (G.V.Ramana) (Usha Sharma) Court Master Court Master

4ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009 CRLMP.NO(s). 7718(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With Crl.MP 7718/2009(c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 04/01/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. L.Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.Balaji, Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv.for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Writ Petition(Criminal) No.68/2008. Issue notice on the application for bail, returnable within four weeks. (Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master

öITEM NO.3 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... /2009 (CRLMP.NO(s). 7718/2009)(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With CRLMP.NO(s). 7718/2009 (appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 23/11/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned by four weeks. (Ajay Kr. Jain) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master

\204ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009 CRLMP.NO(s). 7718(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With Crl.MP 7718/2009 (c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 31/08/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYFor Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.(Not present) UPON perusing papers the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the letter circulated. The case is adjourned by four weeks on account of personal difficulty. (Parveen Kr. Chawla) ( Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master

îITEM NO.50 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009 CRLMP.NO(s). 7718(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005 of The HIGHCOURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 03/08/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHANFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER As per the letter circulated the matter is adjourned for four weeks. (Hemalatha Mohan) (Shashi Bala Vij) Sr.P.A. Court Master

òITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009 CRLMP.NO(s). 7718(From the judgement and order dated 23/07/2008 in CRLA No. 359/2005 ofThe HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)HAKKIM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE TR.DY.SUPDT.OF POLICE Respondent(s)With Crl.MP 7718/2009 (c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 13/05/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. G.Balaji, Adv.for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER As prayed in the letter circulated, four weeks' time is allowed to file additional documents. List thereafter. (Parveen Kr. Chawla) ( Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master