The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a full-fledged trial in serious cases and the interpretation and applicability of Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein, viz., the Inspector of Police, attached to the Coonoor Police Station, Nilgiris District, had registered a criminal case in Crime No.934 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 186 and 353 of I.P.C. against the revision petitioner herein, viz., M.K. Elangovan. The defacto complainant, Mr. M.P. Janarthanam, Personal Assistant to the Assistant Collector, Coonoor, has stated in his complaint that on 20.09.2007 an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Coonoor under Section 138 of Criminal Procedure Code and at that point of time, the defacto complainant recorded the evidence of one Mr. Penthose, President of Kodanad Panchayat, who is a petitioner in the said case. The revision petitioner herein has filed a vakalat on behalf of the Estate Manager, Kodanad Tea Estate, and snatched away the records and the evidence recorded from the defacto complainant and tore it off., hence, the case lodged against the revision petitioner herein.

2. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police had conducted an enquiry in the said criminal case and filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of Coonoor. At this stage, the revision petitioner herein had filed C.M.P.No.3154 of 2008 in S.T.R.No.290 of 2008 to discharge him from the criminal case. The said petition was resisted by the respondent-police. After hearing the arguments of learned counsels on both sides, the discharge petition was dismissed. The learned Magistrate, had assigned the reason stating that the charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 204 and 353 of IPC along with the torn records. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner cannot be discharged from the proceedings since a full fledged trial is of paramount importance.

3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed in C.M.P.No.3154 of 2008 in S.T.R.No.390 of 2008, dated 15.07.2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, the above revision has been filed by the revision petitioner / accused.

4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that in order to attract an offence under Section 204 of IPC, the documents which are seen to have been destroyed by the accused should have been summoned by any Court as evidence, whereas, in this case, the accused is alleged to have slit the deposition of the third person, who was recorded by the P.A. to the Collector, i.e, the defacto complainant in the instant case, before a public servant or any Court which does not cover an offence under Section 204 of I.P.C. The learned senior counsel specifically pointed out that the trial Court failed to consider three aspects before deciding the discharge petition, viz.,

(a) that a document should be in the hands of the accused

(b) the accused has to be summoned to mark the document before the public servant or Court,

(c) the accused himself could have damaged or destroyed the same with an intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before the Court or public servant.

5. But, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner herein is alleged to have picked the depositions from the defacto complainant / Personal Assistant regarding one of the evidence of the case and damaged the same and therefore this would not satisfy any of the mandatory requirements of this Section in 204 of I.P.C. Therefore, the criminal case which has been registered under Section 204 of I.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that as far as Section 353 of I.P.C., is concerned, it will be attracted when the accused commits an offence before a public servant, whereas the case of the prosecution is that, while discharging quasi judicial duty, the above said occurrence was alleged to have taken place, and therefore, the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. has n