Madras High Court
State Represented By vs M.Mathusuthan on 4 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.35158 of 2021
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Crime Branch CID.,
The Nilgiris Unit.
(Crime No.2/2008) ... Petitioner/Complainant
versus
1.M.Mathusuthan
2.L.Thammannan
3.C.Selvaraj
4.K.Arumugam
5.S.Rangarajan
6.N.Mani
7.R.Durai @ Venkatachalam
8.C.Ramesh
9.K.Ravi
10.K.Pulikutty @ Shanmugam
11.P.Ravi @ Ravichandran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
12.P.Ramakutty @ Ramamoorthy
13.G.Selvam @ Selvakumar
14.A.P.Perumal
15.K.Gopalan
16.M.Pappannan ... Respondents/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to grant leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of
the respondents/accused in S.C.No.17 of 2010 dated 31.01.2020 passed by
the Sessions Judge of Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at
Nilgiris.
For Petitioner : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, The Nilgiris Unit has
filed this petition seeking to grant leave for filing an appeal before this Court
as against the order of acquittal dated 31.01.2020 in S.C.No.17 of 2010 on
the file of the Sessions Judge of Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.
2. The petitioner herein, who is the complainant in the petition
mentioned Sessions Case has filed a final report before the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
Magistrate, Udhagamandalam as against the respondents 1 to 16 for the
offences punishable under Sections 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and 9-B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 4 of TNPPDL
Act, 1984. Further, it was alleged that the accused 1 to 3 are liable to be
convicted under Section 379 of I.P.C.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate after receipt of the final report
assigned with the case in P.R.C.No.4 of 2010. After furnishing the case
records to the respondents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the same
to the Sessions Court, Udhagamandalam under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Udhagamandalam
at Nilgiris, after the receipt of committal order, received the case records and
assigned with case in S.C.No.17 of 2010. Afterwards he has framed charges
as against A1 to A3 under Section 3(a) of The Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and A1 under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and A1 to A3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act and A1 to A3 under Section 379 of IPC and
A4 to A13 under Sections 3(a) of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
9-B(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and 4 of TNPPDL Act and A16 and A17
under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and A14, A15 and A18
under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884. After elaborate trial, he
found that the respondents/accused are not guilty for the charges framed
against them and on 31.01.2020, he delivered a judgment, wherein he
acquitted all the accused from the respective charges.
4. Challenging the same, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch
CID intended to file a Criminal Appeal and for which, he preferred this leave
application before this Court.
5. Today, when this petition came up for hearing, the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the appellant/complainant
would vehemently contend that the witnesses, who were examined on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
side of the prosecution, narrated the alleged offences committed by the
accused without any infirmity. But the trial Court without appreciating the
whole evidence projected by the prosecution, acquitted the accused.
According to him, there are arguable points available in the appeal and hence,
it would be necessary to grant leave for filing an appeal against the order of
acquittal.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
either side are considered along with relevant documents.
7. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of prosecution
63 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.63 and 82 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P82. Further, on the side of the defence two documents
were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Besides, material objects were marked as
M.O.1 to M.O.25.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
8. Now on going through the judgment rendered by the trial Court,
all the official witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution would state
about the issuance of license, recovery of objects, arrest of the accused,
examination of witnesses and about the final report. Of course, the witnesses
examined on the side of the prosecution to show the involvement of the
accused, none of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence as the
respondents/accused are committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution.
In fact, P.W.29-Girijan is a Highways Contractor, P.W.31-Nagaraj is a Ooty
Municipality Contractor, P.W.50-Prabhukumar is a Private Building
Contractor and they were all cited as witnesses to speak about purchasing of
rough stones from A1, A3 and deceased A2 and A4 during the occurrence
period and all of them did not give any evidence as against the accused. On
scrutiny of evidence given by those persons, it is not up to implicate the
accused in the alleged occurrence. Further, before the trial Court, they were
all treated as hostile witnesses. Apart from that, the quarry, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
situated in S.Nos. 894/3 and 895/1 of Hullathi Village, is not in the name of
the accused. Accordingly, before the trial Court, the nexus between the
accused and crime has not been established and thereby the trial Court had
acquitted the accused.
9. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
there was no arguable points available in the appeal presented. Hence, it is
not necessary to grant leave for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal
dated 31.01.2020.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
04.03.2022
rsi
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/ Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
rsi
To
1.The Sessions Judge of Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Crime Branch CID.,
The Nilgiris Unit.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.25328 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.35158 of 2021
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
