Madras High Court
B.Murugesh vs State Rep.By The on 3 March, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.2434 & 2436 of 2021
B.Murugesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.by the
Inspector of Police,
Kotagiri Police Station,
Kotagiri. ... Respondent
(Crime No.125 of 2016)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018, dated 22.01.2021 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, confirming the oder of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri in C.C.No.13 of 2016, dated
05.01.2018.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Madhan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the judgment passed by learned
Sessions Judge [Fast Track Mahila Court], Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, in
Crl.A.No.5 of 2018, on 22.01.2021, confirming the Judgment passed in
C.C.No.13 of 2016, dated 05.01.2018, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kotagiri.
2. The respondent-Police has registered the case in Crime No.125 of 2016
against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 353 and 506 (i) of
IPC. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kotagiri. The learned Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file
in C.C.No.13 of 2016. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate found the accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 of of IPC and convicted and
sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
found not guilty under Section 506 (i) of IPC and acquitted the petitioner for the
offence under Section 506 (i) of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, Kotagiri, the petitioner / accused
has filed an Appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the
Appeal on file in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 and made over to Fast Track Mahila Court,
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. After hearing the arguments and also considering
the grounds raised by the petitioner / accused, dismissed the Appeal, by
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate,
Kotagiri.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence passed
by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present Revision.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the
occurrence took place on 05.04.2016 and according to the defacto complainant,
he said to have given complaint on the same day and the respondent-Police has
also issued CSR on 05.04.2016 itself and the defacto complainant has further
stated that he gave another complaint on 07.04.2016. Whereas, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
Investigating Officer has stated that the defacto complainant has not given any
complaint on 05.04.2016 and he has wrongly stated as if the complaint was given
on 05.04.2016 and however, the complaint was given only on 07.04.2016. It is
contended by the learned counsel that on 05.04.2016, the defacto complainant
conducted inspection and smoothly left the place. Since the defacto
complainant demanded bribe from the petitioner and when he refused to give
it, they foisted a false case on 07.04.2016. There are material contractions with
regard to date of the complaint itself and that will go the root of the case of the
prosecution. Both the Courts below, have failed to appreciate the evidence of
the complainant and the Investigating Officer in this regard and they ignored
date of complaint and they failed to the appreciate the fact that the alleged
occurrence has taken place only on 05.04.2016. Admittedly, P.W.3 and P.W.4
hostile and except the complainant, none of the witnesses have spoken about
the occurrence, therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case
beyond all the reasonable doubt, however, both the Courts below erroneously
held that the petitioner has restrained the defacto complainant to perform his
official duty and committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC,
and therefore, the findings given by both the Courts below are perverse and
illegal and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
5. Mr.Madhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Police
would submit that the eyewitnesses and mahazar witnesses have not supported
the case, since they are the employees under the petitioner/accused herein.
The learned Judicial Magistrate has also given reason for ignoring the date of
complaint. Since on 05.04.2016, the occurrence had happened night hours, they
have given CSR, whereas, the Investigation Officer has clearly stated that he has
received the complaint only on 07.04.2016. However, when the defacto
complainant went for inspection, the petitioner/accused not allowed the
defacto complainant to perform his duty as official servant and therefore, he
has preferred the complaint. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the officials and there was
no need to foist a false case against the petitioner/accused and they are duty
bound to make an inspection as and when necessary and the petitioner/accused
is liable to co-operate for completion of the inspection smoothly. Since the
petitioner/accused has not cooperated and did not allow the complainant to
perform his official duty, the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and
convicted the appellant. The first appellate Court as a fact finding Court, rightly
appreciated and confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate. The scope of
the criminal revision is limited and only if it is shown that the order or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
findings of the Courts below are perverse or illegal, the revisional Court can
interfere and in this case, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders
impugned as the Courts below have passed the same after due appreciation of
the materials available on record, hence, no interference is called for from this
Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. Admittedly, the defato complainant is the Government officials,
attached with Tea Board of India, Coononor. The petitioner/accused is running
a Tea factory in Kotagiri and the officials have gone for inspection on
05.04.2016. According to the prosecution, when P.W.1-defacto complainant
along with other officials had gone for inspection on 05.04.2016, the petitioner
prevented the defacto complainant and other officials to perform their official
duty and therefore, lodged a complaint. After investigation, it was found that
the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 353 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
8. According to the petitioner herein, though the defacto complainant
and others officials have conducted inspection on 05.04.2016 and it is alleged
that it was prevented by the petitioner herein, admittedly, no such occurrence
had taken place and no independent witnesses and no materials evidence been
produced to substantiate the same. Except P.W.1 and P.W.2 the officials, no
other independent witnesses have spoken about the occurrence.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
occurrence said to have taken place only on 05.04.2016, as per the prosecution,
the complainant gave the complaint only on 07.04.2016. During the evidence, it
is stated by the complainant that he has filed complaint on the date of
occurrence itself, i.e., on 05.04.2016. Whereas, the Investigating Officer has
stated that the complainant has given complaint only on 07.04.2016 and not on
05.04.2016. It is to be noted that the complainant is an Officer and if at all he
gave complaint on 05.04.2016 itself, and received CSR, then, what is the
necessity to file one more complaint on 07.04.2016, and the said fact was not
properly explained by the prosecution, which creates beyond all reasonable
doubt. Both the Courts below have not discussed about it and given any specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
finding with regard to date of complaint and what is the reason for delay in
filing the complaint. Even as per the prosecution, or even as per the
complainant, what is the necessity to file one more complaint on 07.04.2016,
when the complainant had already filed a complaint on 05.04.2016 itself and got
CSR, which creates a reasonable doubt. Since there was unexplained delay in
filing the complaint, this Court finds that there is perversity in giving finding
regarding conviction and sentence.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the Judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam at
Nilgiris, passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018, dated 22.01.2021, confirming the
Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri in C.C.No.13 of 2016,
dated 05.01.2018, shall stand set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the
charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.03.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam
at Nilgiris.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Kotagiri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.2434 & 2436 of 2021
03.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
