Madras High Court
L.Mahalingam vs The State Represented By on 29 July, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
1.L.Mahalingam
2.L.Rajendiran
3.V.Murugesan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
Vs.
The State represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Aanaikaranchathiram Police Station,
Crime No. 619 of 2009. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to
Judgment dated 02.06.2014 in C.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali and subsequently confirmed vide
judgment dated 12.03.2015 in Crl.A.No.25 of 2014 on the file of the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and to set aside the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
ORDER
The convicted accused viz., A1 to A3 are the revision petitioners
herein.
2.The revision petition has been filed by the accused 1 to 3 to
challenge the judgment passed by the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.A.No.25 of 2014, dated 12.03.2015, by
confirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sirkali, in C.C.No.90 of 2010, dated 02.06.2014, wherein, the learned
judge has convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 353
of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months each and further, the learned judge has convicted the first
accused for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the learned
judge has ordered the first accused to undergo the sentences concurrently.
3.The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet alleging that on
30.10.2009 morning at about 11.00 a.m., while the defacto complainant
viz., Murugesan was standing in front of the Office of the
Chidambaranathapuram Village Administrative Officer, the revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
petitioners herein/A1 to A3 have abused him with obscene words and
snatched away the documents from his hand and threw it and threatened
him that they would remove him from Government Service and also with
dire consequences. Hence, a criminal case in Crime No. 619 of 2009 was
filed against these appellants/accused 1 to 3.
4.During the trial, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW5 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the defence no
oral or documentary evidence has been adduced.
5.The suggestive case of the defence is that the first accused was
examined as DW1. From the evidence of DW1 it came to know that one
Sivasankaran who was working as a Village Administrative Officer in
Chidambaranathapuram, has committed some misappropriation along
with his Menial Ravichandran and when this fact was questioned by the
accused persons, a case was foisted against them at the instigation of the
said Sivasankarnam.
6.The Trial Court has held that the accused are not guilty under
Section 294 of IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
Section 353 of IPC and 506(i) of IPC. As aggrieved against the same, the
accused have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2014, before the Court
of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and the learned
Judge has dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 12.03.2015 and
confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sirkali, as stated supra. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.
7.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend
that there is a delay of four days in preferring the complaint and the
official records which said to have been damaged by the accused were
not seized and produced before the Court. The spurious seal of Tashildar
Office, alleged to have been used by the accused for getting approval
from the agricultural departments was also not seized and the suggestive
case of the defence was not considered by both the Courts below and
hence, seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the
Courts below.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent made submissions in support of the judgment of the Trial
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
9.After perusing the records and also the oral and documentary
evidence adduced before the Court, it is seen that PW1 is working as
VAO; PW2 is attached to the office of the VAO; compliant given by the
PW1/VAO was marked as Ex.P1. Based upon Ex.P1, the Criminal law
was set into motion.
10.On a combined reading of the oral evidence of PW1 & PW2, it
has been clearly deposed about the presence of the accused in the office
of the VAO and they have damaged the records mentioned in the office of
VAO by snatching and throwing out the documents and also threatened
him that they would remove him from Government Service and also with
dire consequences and in connection with use of the spurious seal for
claiming Maniyam (Government subsidy) from the agricultural
department. The prime allegation is that since PW1 in the official
capacity as that of VAO, he found that the accused have used spurious
seal of VAO and submitted certain forms to the agricultural department to
make bogus claim. On coming to know about the same VAO has given
complaint to the higher authorities.
11.Per contra, the case of the accused by way of suggestive cross
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
examination is that the previous VAO viz., Sivasankaran, had
misappropriated the Government Funds along with his assistant viz.,
Ravichandran and hence, a false case has been foisted against them.
12.Admittedly, this case does not involve any allegation as against
the previous VAO Sivasankaran and hence, the evidence of the PW1 is
relevant for the purpose of this case. Furthermore, though a suggestive
case has been projected it was not probablised in the absence of any
evidence to support the alleged act done by the previous VAO viz.,
Sivasankaran.
13.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, both the Courts below
have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused persons have
prepared a forged seal of VAO and acquainted Manayam and that is the
reason beyond the alleged attack and hence, both the Courts below have
rightly come to the conclusion that the presence of accused on the said
date viz, 30.10.2009 at about 11 a.m., in the office of VAO has been
clearly spoken to PW1 and PW2. The act on the part of the accused in
the office of VAO has also been clearly spoken and in the cross
examination nothing is elicited to discrete the evidence of PW1 and PW2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
and hence, the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below as to
charge under Section 353 and 506(ii) does not warrant any interference
in the absence of any illegality or irregularity.
14.As to the quantum of the sentence, I find that it is in
consummate with the proved charges and hence, I find that there is no
merits in this case.
15.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
The judgment passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam, in Crl.A.No.25 of 2014, dated 12.03.2015, by confirming
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sirkali, in C.C.No.90 of 2010, dated 02.06.2014, is hereby confirmed.
29.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dua
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Aanaikaranchathiram Police Station.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali.
3.The District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.
dua
Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2015
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
