Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M. DHANDAPANI versus R. MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS.

Decided
21 October 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 40 · 2008 INSC 1195

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

D~.

p. 41, margin C

Opinion 2

1

Heard.

p. 41, margin C

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The appeal was filed questioning the order dated 20.12.2001 made in CC No. 85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode District. The allegations were to the effect that on 18.2.1997 at about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that the complainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the shop. The complainant was questioned by respondent No. 1 as to why he had kept the shop open. The complainant replied that the shop was kept open for the cleaning the utensils. This does not appear to have satisfied respondent No. 1 who directed the other two accused persons . who were constables to put the accused in the jeep and assaulted him. The trial court with reference to the evidence of witnesses came to hold that the accusations were without substance and there was no material to show the alleged commission of offence. Since the order was passed in a complaint case, appeal was preferred by grant of leave. The High Court referred to the various conclusions of the trial court and hold that the accusations have not been established. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court's conclusions are contrary to the evidence High Court has concluded about the contradictions the evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is pointed out that conclusions are· at variance with the evidence

pp. 41–42, margin C

3

We have perused the .records and after counsel for the appellant we are satisfied that is called for. The High Court has indicated several to why the complainant version lacks credibility or

p. 42, margin A

4

That being the position, we find no appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.K.S. Appeals

p. 42, margin A