Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1383
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5156 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.19524 of 2025
arising out of Diary No.52993 of 2024)
VENKATESH & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto
complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed
in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be
amended accordingly.
2. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
3. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
4. By judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 passed in S.C.
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.12.04
17:26:09 IST
Reason:
No.460/2016 by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions
1
Judge, Salem the appellants herein were convicted in Crime
No.103/2016 for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil
Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short
“TNPPDL Act”). The appellants were sentenced under Section 326
IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more
months’ rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under
Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of
payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each.
The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, they
preferred Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the Madras High
Court.
6. By the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, the High Court
dismissed the appeal of the appellants and directed them to
undergo the remaining sentence while observing that the period of
sentence already undergone by the accused shall stand set off
under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2
7. Being unsuccessful in their appeal(s), the appellants are
before this Court.
8. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the
respondents limited only to the quantum of sentence.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three
months of incarceration under Section 326 of the IPC. He therefore,
submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants may be
reduced to the period already undergone instead of what has been
imposed by the Sessions Courts, which has been affirmed by the
High Court. He submitted that there is also a compromise and
settlement of disputes between the parties and in the
circumstances this Court may reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone as they have undergone nearly half of the
sentence imposed on them.
10. Per contra, learned A.A.G appearing for the respondent/State
submitted that there is no merit in this appeal. However,
appropriate orders may be made in the appeal.
3
11. We take note of the facts and circumstances of the case. We
find that out of five years of sentence imposed on the appellants,
they have already completed two years and three months. This
Court had issued notice to the respondents only on the question of
sentence. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the
appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith from the jail
in which they are incarcerated, if they are otherwise not required
in any other case.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. The operative portion of this judgment shall be released
forthwith.
………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
..……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 02, 2025.
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. /2025
@ Diary No(s). 52993/2024)
VENKATESH & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….RESPONDENT(S)
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
The prayer/application for impleadment of de-
facto complainant and his wife as respondents to
this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise
between the private parties. Cause title be
amended accordingly.
Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of. Reasoned
judgment shall follow.
1
While upholding the conviction of the appellants
herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith
from the jail in which they are incarcerated, if they
are otherwise not required in any other case.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of
………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
….……………………………………J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 02, 2025
2
ITEM NO.17/1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 52993/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-02-2023
in CRLA No. 481/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
VENKATESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
IA No. 45345/2025 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 10241/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 10246/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 10244/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 02-12-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR
Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv.
Mr. Hari Krishnan P V, Adv.
Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh V M, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv.
Mr. K.S.Badhrinathan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The prayer/application for impleadment of de-
facto complainant and his wife as respondents to
1
this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise
between the private parties. Cause title be amended
accordingly.
Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed non-reportable judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
( signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1383
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5156 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.19524 of 2025
arising out of Diary No.52993 of 2024)
VENKATESH & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto
complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed
in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be
amended accordingly.
2. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
3. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
4. By judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 passed in S.C.
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.12.04
17:26:09 IST
Reason:
No.460/2016 by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions
1
Judge, Salem the appellants herein were convicted in Crime
No.103/2016 for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil
Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short
“TNPPDL Act”). The appellants were sentenced under Section 326
IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more
months’ rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under
Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of
payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each.
The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, they
preferred Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the Madras High
Court.
6. By the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, the High Court
dismissed the appeal of the appellants and directed them to
undergo the remaining sentence while observing that the period of
sentence already undergone by the accused shall stand set off
under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2
7. Being unsuccessful in their appeal(s), the appellants are
before this Court.
8. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the
respondents limited only to the quantum of sentence.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three
months of incarceration under Section 326 of the IPC. He therefore,
submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants may be
reduced to the period already undergone instead of what has been
imposed by the Sessions Courts, which has been affirmed by the
High Court. He submitted that there is also a compromise and
settlement of disputes between the parties and in the
circumstances this Court may reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone as they have undergone nearly half of the
sentence imposed on them.
10. Per contra, learned A.A.G appearing for the respondent/State
submitted that there is no merit in this appeal. However,
appropriate orders may be made in the appeal.
3
11. We take note of the facts and circumstances of the case. We
find that out of five years of sentence imposed on the appellants,
they have already completed two years and three months. This
Court had issued notice to the respondents only on the question of
sentence. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the
appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith from the jail
in which they are incarcerated, if they are otherwise not required
in any other case.
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. The operative portion of this judgment shall be released
forthwith.
………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
..……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 02, 2025.
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. /2025
@ Diary No(s). 52993/2024)
VENKATESH & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….RESPONDENT(S)
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
The prayer/application for impleadment of de-
facto complainant and his wife as respondents to
this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise
between the private parties. Cause title be
amended accordingly.
Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of. Reasoned
judgment shall follow.
1
While upholding the conviction of the appellants
herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith
from the jail in which they are incarcerated, if they
are otherwise not required in any other case.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of
………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
….……………………………………J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 02, 2025
2
ITEM NO.17/1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 52993/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-02-2023
in CRLA No. 481/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
VENKATESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
IA No. 45345/2025 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 10241/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 10246/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 10244/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 02-12-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR
Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv.
Mr. Hari Krishnan P V, Adv.
Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh V M, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv.
Mr. K.S.Badhrinathan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The prayer/application for impleadment of de-
facto complainant and his wife as respondents to
1
this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise
between the private parties. Cause title be amended
accordingly.
Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed non-reportable judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
( signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
2