The court emphasized the need to consider the object of the Act and held that not in every case, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act can be invoked.

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 14.05.2008, in S.C.No.77 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge(FTC-I), Thanjavur, in and by which, the appellant/A1 was convicted for offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPPDL Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one week.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

P.W.1 is residing at Mariammankovil Street, Thanajvur and running a grocery shop. On 10.04.2007 at about 09.30 p.m., the accused 1 and 2 came to the said shop and asked the whereabouts of her son and abused her in filthy language and also damaged her shop. P.W.2, who is the sister of P.W.1, was also present at the time of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, which is marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.122 of 2007 under Sections 294(b) IPC and 3(1)TNPPDL Act, which is marked as Ex.P.4.

(ii)Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.4 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.5) in the presence of witnesses. From the place of occurrence, P.W.4 seized a piece of broken glass, which is marked as Ex.P.6 and enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the seized broken glass to the Court under Form 95.

(iii)P.W.5, Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and arrested the accused/A1 on 17.04.2007 and remanded him to Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed a final report against the accused/A1 under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

(iv).Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 5 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 5) were examined and 6 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.6) were exhibited and M.O.1 was also marked. On the side of the accused, neither a witness nor a document has been filed.

(v).On completion of trial, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Thanjavur, found the accused/A1 guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A1.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire prosecution is doubtful and the FIR would create a serious suspicion over the manner in which, the alleged occurrence has taken place. Admittedly, prior to the occurrence, the accused had already lodged a complaint against the son of P.W.1. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed and the FIR has been registered with inordinate delay and the said delay has not been explained. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is highly doubtful and no independent witness has been examined. Since the entire prosecution is doubtful, the appeal may be allowed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly spoken about the nature of violence caused by the accused and hence, he prays for dismissal.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, now it has to be decided as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.

6. P.W.1 is running a grocery shop near to the place of occurrence. According to her, on 10.04.2007, A1 and A2 came to the shop and asked about her son and also abused her in filthy language, besides, the accused damaged the shop. Immediately, P.W.1 made a complaint and FIR has also been registered. P.W.2, who is none other than the sister of P.W.1, also supported the evidence of P.W.1. She has also spoken about the alleged damage, whereas, the FIR has been registered only on the next day ie., on 11.04.2007 at about 14.00 hours. Though the prosecution ha