JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in S.C.No.303 of 2010, dated 19.12.2018.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.343 of 2008, for offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Damager and Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPPDL Act') against the appellant/A1 and A2 on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the defacto complainant (PW.1). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.20 of 2008. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Session, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.303 of 2010 and made over to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem for disposal in accordance with law.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, farmed charge under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. During the pendency of the trial, the 2nd accused died and therefore, the charge against him was abated.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the damaged property has not been valued in proper manner and the valuation certificate has not been marked by the prosecution during trial. The learned counsel would further submit that PW1 to PW3 are unknown persons to the appellant prior to the occurrence and no identification parade was conducted to identify the appellant in this case. Though the occurrence said to have taken place in the running bus, no independent witness or eye witness was examined by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that when the bus was running, the appellant/A1 and his brother/A2 pelted stone on the back side wind screen and damaged the mirror. If at all the alleged occurrence is true, the passengers in the bus would have sustained injury. But none of the passengers sustained injury and none of the passengers who were travelling in the bus at the time of the occurrence was examined in this case. It would go to show that there was no such occurrence had happened and the respondent Police put up a false case against the appellant. Since only the appellant/A1 and his brother/A2 questioned about the activities of the Driver and Conductor (PW1 and PW2), they foisted a false case against them and the trial Court without considering the same, convicted the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant, is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent Police would submit that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 16.07.2008, at about 08.45 p.m., the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number TN 27 N 1621 while proceeding to Tiruchengodu, the appellant and his brother stopped the bus near Kamaraj statue at Tharamangalam. The appellant/A1 and his brother/A2 got into the bus with an intention of going to Salem. Though they were informed by the Conductor (PW2) of the bus that the bus would not go to Salem, both the accused shouted the Driver and Conductor (PW1 & PW2)