Madras High Court
E.Raj vs State Represented By on 4 February, 2021
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
E.Raj
S/o.Eruthayam ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police
R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station
Chennai
(Crime No.100 of 2012) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records against judgment dated 09.10.2014 in
C.A.No.182 of 2013 on the file of the Metropolitan VI Additional
Sessions Court, Chennai, against C.C.No.558 of 2012 on the file of the
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, acquit and
discharge the Revision petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manikandan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to call for the
records against judgment dated 09.10.2014 in C.A.No.182 of 2013 on the
file of the Metropolitan VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, against
C.C.No.558 of 2012 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, to acquit and discharge the Revision
petitioner.
2.The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is as follows:
P.W.1 Suryanarayanan was working as a pharmacist in K.K. Nagar
Government Hospital Out Patient Section. While he was on duty, on
15.01.2012, the petitioner / accused had come to the pharmacy and asked
for certain medicines and when P.W.1 refused to give the medicines
without prescription, the accused had abused him in filthy language,
threatened to do away with him and then left the place of occurrence.
Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered against the
accused in Crime No.100 of 2012 for the offences under section 294(b),
353 and 506(1) I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the final report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
was filed before the Learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai and on the appearance of the petitioner / accused, he was
furnished copies of the relevant documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3.Thereafter, the case was made over to the learned XXIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and taken cognizance in
C.C.No.558 of 2012. The substance of the case was explained to the
petitioner / accused and the petitioner / accused denied the charges
against him and claimed to be tried.
4.In the trial, in order to prove the guilt of the petitioner / accused,
the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 on its side and marked
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. During the trial, P.W.1 had deposed that he is
a pharmacist at K.K. Nagar Government Hospital in Outpatient Section
and that on 15.01.2012 while he was on duty the accused had come to the
hospital and demanded him to give certain medicines without
prescription, when P.W.1 refused to give any medicines without any
prescription, the accused got enraged and abused P.W.1 in filthy
language, thereby, committed the offence under section 353 I.P.C. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
accused had threatened the P.W.1 saying that he should not ask for
prescription from him and also abused him in filthy language and
criminally intimidated him. Since P.W.1 was on duty, the occurrence was
reported to his superiors through proper channel and thereby a complaint
was given to the respondent police. The evidence of P.W.1 was
corroborated by P.W.2 who was the doctor, P.W.4 and P.W.7 who were the
nurses on duty in the hospital at the time of occurrence. P.W.3 is the
witness for the Mahazor, P.W.5 is an individual witness examined and he
has turned hostile. P.W.6 is the witness for observation Mahazor, P.W.8
who is the Sub Inspector of police in the respondent police station has
deposed that while he was on duty viz. 11.01.2012, he had received a
complaint from P.W.1, thereby he issued CSR and after conducting
preliminary enquiry, he found that the incident was true and registered a
case in Crime No.100 of 2012 for the offences under section 294(b), 353
and 506(2) IPC. F.I.R was marked as Ex.P5, and after the investigation,
he filed the final report. On the side of the defence, no oral and
documentary evidence was marked by the Trial Court.
5.The Trial Court taking into consideration the evidence had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
acquitted the petitioner for the offence under section 294(b) IPC. Further,
the Trial Court found the petitioner / accused guilty for the offence under
section 506(1) IPC, convicted the petitioner and ordered him to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 353 IPC, the Trial Court
convicted the petitioner and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. In respect to the
offence under Section 294(b), the petitioner was acquitted.
6.Aggrieved by the said conviction order, the petitioner had
preferred C.A.No.182 of 2013 and the Appellate Court while confirming
the judgment of the Trial Court had wrongly presumed that the petitioner
was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the
offence under section 353, 506(1) IPC and partly allowed the
C.A.No.182 of 2013 and set aside the order of the sentence to undergo
simple imprisonment and confirmed the fine imposed on the petitioner,
against which the present revision has been filed.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
that the alleged occurrence took place on 15.01.2012, whereas, the F.I.R.
was registered only on 21.01.2012 and both the courts below failed to
take into consideration the enormous delay in registering the case. He
would further submit that though the Trial Court has imposed only a fine
amount of Rs.500/-, the Appellate Court on wrong presumption without
application of mind, observed as though the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under
section 353 IPC and 506(1) IPC, partly allowed the C.A.No.182 of 2013
by setting aside the sentence and confirmed the fine amount imposed on
the petitioner.
8.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that the Courts below taking into consideration the evidence on
record and finding that the complaint had been given on 15.01.2012 after
getting approval of the higher officials, and that a case in CSR was
registered on the same day and finding that the F.I.R. had been registered
after the preliminary enquiry, had categorically held that there had been
no delay on the part of the prosecution or P.W.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
9.Further, learned Government Advocate would submit that both
the Courts below, on facts found that the petitioner was guilty under
Section 353 and 506(1) IPC. He would further submit that the Appellate
Court, wrongly presumed that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
one month simple imprisonment for the offence under section 353 IPC
and 506(1) IPC and partly allowed the appeal in C.A.No.182 of 2013 by
setting aside the sentence and confirmed the payment of fine imposed on
the petitioner and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. He would further submit that the respondent on facts, proved the
case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no infirmity, illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the Courts below to warrant
interference.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). Perused the materials
placed on records.
11.Perusal of the records show that the evidence of P.W. 1 had
been corroborated by P.W. 2 (Doctor), P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 (nurses) who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
were present on duty at the relevant point of time. They are the eye
witnesses to the occurrence. Further the case of the prosecution has been
proved by evidence of P.W.3, P.W.6. The investigating officer viz. P.W.8
had deposed that based on the complaint, CSR was issued on the same
day. Thereafter, preliminary enquiry was conducted, after finding that the
incident was true had registered a case. This Court doesn't find that there
had been any delay and there is no infirmity or illegality with regard to
the facts as observed by both the Courts below. Further the finding of the
Appellate Court that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under section
353 and 506(1) IPC is wrong and erroneous. Needless to say that the
observation by the Appellate Court with regard to the same needs to be
set aside. On other aspects there is no merit in the Revision.
12.This Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed accordingly.
04.02.2021
kas
Index : yes / no Index : yes / no
Speaking / Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
To
1.The VI Additional Sessions Court
Chennai
2.The XXIII, Metropolitan Magistrate Court
Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015
3.The Inspector of Police
Inspector of Police
R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station
Chennai
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1164 of 2014
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
kas
CRLR.C.No.1164 of 2014
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
