Madras High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Criminal appeal dismissed as infructuous after the convict completed the imposed sentence.

KANDHASAMY @ GURU vs THE STATE REP BY ITS,

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Criminal appeal dismissed as infructuous after the convict completed the imposed sentence.. KANDHASAMY @ GURU vs THE STATE REP BY ITS,. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant, the sole accused, was convicted by the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, in Special S.C. No. 43 of 2019 for an offence under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

Source reference: para. 2

He had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21 September 2019, was not released on bail during trial, and his sentence was not suspended after conviction.

Source reference: para. 3

During the pendency of the appeal, the State confirmed that he had served the sentence and was released from Central Prison, Coimbatore, on 15 May 2025.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the criminal appeal required further adjudication after the appellant had served the entire sentence imposed by the Trial Court and had been released from prison.

Source reference: paras. 3–5

Whether any relief could be granted in the appeal in the circumstances, notwithstanding the appellant’s completion of the custodial sentence.

Source reference: para. 5
03

Law Applied

The appeal was instituted under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of conviction.

Source reference: p. 1

The conviction and sentence were recorded under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Source reference: para. 2

The Court applied the procedural principle that where an appellant has fully served the sentence under challenge and has been released, and no surviving relief or controversy remains for determination, the pending appeal may be dismissed as no longer requiring adjudication.

Source reference: para. 5
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the appellant had remained in custody from 21 September 2019, had not obtained bail or suspension of sentence, and had completed the seven-year custodial sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Source reference: para. 3

The respondent’s confirmation, based on prison records, established that the appellant had been released on 15 May 2025.

Source reference: para. 4

Since the sentence had already been fully served, the Court held that there was no surviving practical relief requiring consideration in the pending appeal and therefore no further adjudication was warranted.

Source reference: para. 5
05

Holding

The Court held that nothing survived for further adjudication because the appellant had completed the sentence and had been released from prison.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2022 was dismissed.

Source reference: para. 5
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

KANDHASAMY @ GURUvsTHE STATE REP BY ITS,

Madras High Court · September 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment