The Accused No.1 in C.C.No.288 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur who was found guilty of charges and convicted for offences under Sections 506(i), 294(b) and 353 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigourous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(i) I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C, after unsuccessfully prosecuting an appeal before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.147 of 2006 has come for-ward with the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court.

2. A Charge sheet was laid after investigation in a case registered on the file of Mettur Police Station as Crime No.494 of 2009 based on the complaint of P.W.1 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 506 (ii) by the petitioner herein, who figured as A1 and two other persons, namely Saradha and Jothi, who figured as A2 and A3 respectively. The case of prosecution is that P.W.1, who was the Taluk Supply Officer went to the fair price shop at Poraiyur pursuant to an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur to conduct a stock verification of the goods meant for supply under the Public Distribution System; that while she was doing such stock verification at about 1.45 p.m. on 6.11.2004, the petitioner and the other o accused prevented her from discharging her duty as a Public Officer and abused her with unparliamentary words besides causing a threat that she would not leave the place alive in case she ventured to inform the public of the malpractices found by P.W.1.

3. The trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 596(ii) against the petitioner herein/A1 and against the other two accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506(ii) alone. As many as 5 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and six documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 on the side of the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons. No material object was produced. After examining the accused under Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the materials adduced on the side of prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur considered the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that except the charge under Section 341 I.P.C, all the other charges were proved against the petitioner/A1 and convicted him for the said offence and imposed punishment as indicated supra. So far as the other two accused are concerned, Saradha (A2) was convicted for an offence under Section 353 alone, whereas Jothi (A3) was acquitted of all the offences with which she stood charged.

4. As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner alone preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2006 which came to be disposed of by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem by judgment dated 6.9.2007 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for all the three offences and the sentence imposed thereon by the trial Court. The same is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case on various grounds set out in the petition.

5. This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.B. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Muniapparaj, learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) representing the Respondent Police. The materials available on record were also perused.

6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is