Madras High Court
Ganesan @ David ... Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
Ganesan @ David ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(In Crime No.155 of 2011). ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to
the case in C.A.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, dated 07.08.2017,
confirming the Judgment made in C.C.No.94 of 2011 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 04.04.2013
and set aside the same and allow this Revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in C.A.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, dated 07.08.2017,
confirming the Judgment made in C.C.No.94 of 2011 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 04.04.2013.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2011 at
about 04.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant was working as an
Executive Officer in the office of Mamsapuram Town Panchayat, the
petitioner went to his office to verify his application submitted under
the Right to Information Act. At that juncture, the defacto
complainant asked him to affix the proper stamp in the petition.
Immediately, he scolded him with filthy language and also tore his
application which was kept on the table and he also attempted to
attack the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3.On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent
registered the F.I.R in Crime No.155 of 2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(2) of I.P.C. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report
and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.94 of 2011 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur.
4.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2 were marked.
5.On perusal of both the oral and documentary
evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 353 of I.P.C and sentenced him to
undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default, he shall undergo two weeks Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C and he
was sentenced to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and
also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, he shall undergo two
months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 of
I.P.C and acquitted him for the offence under Section 506(2) of
I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, and the Appellate Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court. Hence, the Revision.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that there were contradictions between P.W.1 to P.W.3.
Those contradictions are fatal to the case of the prosecution and as
such, failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. According to the
case of the prosecution, the petitioner filed an application seeking
under the Right to Information Act without fixing the stamp.
However, on 01.06.2011 at about 04.00 p.m., the petitioner was
provided with information on the documents. There was no such
occurrence happened and a false case has been foisted as against
the petitioner. If at all the petitioner failed to affix the proper stamp
on the application seeking information under the Right to
Information Act, the defacto complainant could not have furnished
the information under the Right to Information Act. In so far as the
offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C is concerned, the prosecution
failed to prove its case beyond any doubt, since no witness had
spoken about the words uttered by the petitioner herein. Hence, the
petitioner prayed for acquittal from all the charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that
while P.W.1 was working as an Executive Officer of Mamsapuram
Town Panchayat on 01.06.2011 at about 04.00 pm., the petitioner
was asked to affix proper stamp on the application seeking for
information under the Right to Information Act. Immediately, the
petitioner scolded the defacto complainant with filthy language and
also threatened him with dire consequences and attempted to
attack him with the plastic chair. Immediately, P.W.3 intercepted and
dragged the petitioner from outside the office. The prosecution
categorically proved its case beyond any doubt. Therefore, the
Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of I.P.C. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the revision.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
9.The petitioner applied for some information under the
Right to Information Act on 27.05.2011 from P.W.1, who was
working as an Executive Officer of Mamsapuram Town Panchayat.
On 01.06.2011, when P.W.1 asked for the sufficient stamp to be
fixed in the application seeking information under the Right to
Information Act, the petitioner scolded him with filthy language and
also tore his application which was kept in the table of P.W.1. That
apart, the petitioner attempted to attack him with the plastic chair.
It was prevented by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and lodged the complaint. The
respondent police station is situated within 100 meters from the
Town Panchayat Office. However, P.W.1 lodged the complaint only at
about 08.00 pm., for the occurrence took place at about 04.00 p.m.
The prosecution failed to explain the delay in the lodgement of the
complaint.
10.On perusal of the complaint lodged by P.W.1, which
was marked as Ex.P.1 revealed that the petitioner applied for some
information and documents under the Right to Information Act on
27.05.2011. However, the petitioner failed to affix Rs.10/- stamp.
Therefore, P.W.1 asked him to affix Rs.10/- stamp in order to
furnish information under the Right to Information Act. Immediately,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
the petitioner scolded him with filthy language and also tore the
application which was kept on the table of P.W.1. He also attempted
to attack him with the plastic chair. It was prevented by P.W.2 and
P.W.3, whereas the application submitted by the petitioner under the
Right to Information Act was marked as Ex.P.2. It is also seen that it
is intact and there is no evidence that it was torn by the petitioner
herein. That apart, the petitioner produced the information which
was furnished by P.W.1 in favour of the petitioner on the same day,
namely on 01.06.2011. On perusal of the reply, dated 01.06.2011,
it revealed that he furnished the details which were sought for by
the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. If at all, the
petitioner failed to affix the stamp fee, P.W.1 could not have
furnished the information under the Right to Information Act.
11.Further, in order to attract the offence under Section
294(b) of I.P.C, it is not enough mere utterance of obscene words it
is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the utterance of
obscene words caused annoyance to others whoever in public place.
The prosecution also failed to prove that the words utter by the
petitioner caused annoyance to the others, namely P.W.2 and P.W.3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
12.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3
revealed that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the
offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution
failed to prove its case beyond any doubt in order to prove the
charge for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 353 of I.P.C as
against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds infirmity in the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below and the same
is liable to be set aside.
13.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed
and the Judgment made in C.A.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur,
dated 07.08.2017, confirming the Judgment made in C.C.No.94 of
2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur,
dated 04.04.2013,21 is set aside. The petitioner/accused is
acquitted. Bail bond if any executed by the petitioner/accused shall
stand cancelled and a fine amount if paid is ordered to be refunded
to the appellant/accused forthwith.
28.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Srivilliputhur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.254 of 2018
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
