VELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.R.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that to-day, he has filed change of vakalat for the revision petitioner herein. He further submitted that his client/the revision petitioner has preferred this revision against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam, in Crl.A.No.135 of 2006, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.10.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, in C.C.No.121 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts), 338 (3 counts), 304(A) (7 counts) and 201 I.P.C. But, the sentence imposed by both the Courts below has been undergone by the revision petitioner. Hence, the criminal revision becomes infructuous.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) filed a report from the Inspector of Police, Veppur Police station, Cuddalore District, stating that the revision petitioner/accused has already undergone the period sentenced by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. Since no suspension of sentence has been given by this Court, nothing survives in the criminal revision.