1. The petitioner in the above Criminal Revision Case is the accused in C.C.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode. The petitioner was tried for the charges under Sections 353, 294 (b), 427 and 506 (ii) IPC. While the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC, she was convicted for the offence under Sections 353 IPC and 427 IPC and sentenced to the fine of Rs.400/- and Rs.300/- respectively with a default clause. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.196 of 2007 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, who by his judgment, dated 14.11.2007, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

(i) P.W.10 is the Deputy Tahsildar, working at Erode Tahsildars office. On 29.11.2005 one Baskaran gave him a petition asking him to make arrangements to measure his property comprised in Natham S.No.1940/6. Accordingly, he instructed P.W.1 to go to the property and measure the same and to submit a report.

(ii) On the instructions of the Deputy Tahsildar, P.W.1, who is the Firka Surveyor went to the Natham S.F.No.1940/6 and he gave information to the neighbours about his visit to the property. At about 03.30 pm he started measuring the property in the presence of Baskaran and his neighbour Jayaseeli, the accused herein. The accused objected the measuring of the property for which P.W.1 said that he was acting on instructions of the Tahsildar which she could not resist. When he proceeded his job, the accused abused him by using filthy language and also threatened him. She also tore the measuring tape to a length of 19 metres and took away the same. She also tore the Filed Measurement Book (FMB) and damaged. Then P.W.1 went to Arachalur Police Station and lodged a complaint-Ex.P-2. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

3. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.O.1. Though no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the accused, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the Government Servants. P.W.4 is the person who sought for survey of his lands and P.W.5 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.4. P.W.1 is the surveyor who lodged the complaint. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 03.30 pm on 17.12.2005, the complaint has been lodged on 10.00 pm on 17.12.2005 and the First Information Report had reached the Court at 08.05 pm on 18.12.2005. The Courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted the petitioner under Sections 353 and 427 IPC, but acquitted the petitioner for the charges under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though made several submissions as to why the Courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, mainly contended that P.W.1 and the father of P.W.4 were working in the same office and only to support P.W.4, a false complaint had been lodged against the petitioner and pleaded that the revision could be disposed of on the legal aspect.

6. At the outset it has to be pointed out that the trial court on a consideration of the answers elicited from P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination disbelieved the recovery of M.O.1, Tape. The trial court while considering the prosecution case that the accused torn off the FMB and the Settlement Register carried by P.W.1 has observed that along with his complaint P.W.1 had enclosed the torn off FMB and the Settlement Register and has further observed that the above said two documents were sent to the Court, but the same have not been produced before the Court. When it is the case of the prosecution that the