The revision petitioner questions the order of remand made by the appellate Court in C.A.No.56 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. The respondent herein one T.V. Mathankumar filed O.S. No. 105 of 2001 before the District Munsif Court, Melur seeking the relief of injunction restraining the defendants therein from dispossessing him except by due process of law. The respondent had described himself as the Correspondent of Mother Mary Matriculation School. The revision petitioner herein was described as the power agent of one Regina Chandraraj and shown as the defendant in the said suit. The said suit ultimately came to be dismissed on 29.07.2003. The revision petitioner herein thereupon filed I.A.No.132 of 2003 in the said suit and wanted the trial Court to initiate prosecution against the respondent herein. The said petition was filed under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The matter was fully enquired and the trial Court by order dated 03.11.2004 recorded a finding adverse to the respondent herein and made a complaint in writing to the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. The said petition was apparently taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent herein filed C.A.No.112 of 2005 before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai, questioning the decision of the trial Court in lodging a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The said criminal appeal was dismissed on 16.09.2005. The Judicial Magistrate, Melur ought to have proceeded in the matter by treating the District Munsif, Melur as the complainant. Instead, the revision petitioner herein was treated as a complainant. After despatching the complaint in writing to the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, the complaining Court went into a limbo. This is patently evident from the fact that it was Thiru. M. Patturajan, learned counsel, who prosecuted the respondent herein in C.C.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. The Public Prosecutor is nowhere in the picture.

4. A look at the list of exhibits as well as the list of witnesses examined on the side of the complainant would show that again the matter was proceeded as if it was a private complaint lodged by a private individual. On the side of the complainant, Mr. Pakiaraj, Mr. Arthur Joseph Asirvatham and one Annalakshmi were examined as witnesses. Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur by judgment dated 14.03.2007 found the respondent herein guilty of the offence under Section 193 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also levied a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Default sentence of three months imprisonment was also imposed in event of failure to remit the said fine. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed C.A.No.56 of 2007 before the Additional District Judge, Madurai. Before the learned appellate Judge, it was pointed out that the entire burden of song of the prosecution was that Mr. Mathankumar had deliberately and falsely described himself as the Correspondent of Mother Mary Matriculation School.

5. It is beyond dispute that the respondent herein was in occupation of a building door No.4/667, Annai Street, Vandiyur Main Road, Anna Nagar, Madurai. A school in the name and style of Mother Mary Matriculation School was being run. The said building belongs to Dr. Regina Chandraraj. Admittedly, she was shown as defendant in the suit. The respondent herein was under the impression that Dr. Pakiaraj was her authorised agent. Be that as it may, in the year 2002, Dr. Arthur Joseph Asirvatham, who was the actual power agent of Dr. Regina Chandraraj filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller, Melur for evicting the tenant. In the said eviction petition, two persons were shown as respondents. The first one was Mrs. Teena Madan. The second respondent was described as “Mother Mary Matriculation School represented through