ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment dated 24.12.2018 in C.A.No.39 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in and by which, confirmed the judgment dated 01.02.2016 in C.C.No. 226 of 2015 on the file of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.348 of 2014 for an offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the petitioner. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police filed a charge sheet before the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.226 of 2015. After framing the charges, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence were put against the petitioner and the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidences and circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and no documentary evidence were marked.

3. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record found that the accused/petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.39 of 2016 and made over to the learned First Additional Session Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for disposal. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision Case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such occurrence was taken place in the train as stated by the de facto complainant. The Lower Appellate Court has not applied its judicial mind regarding perverse judgment of the trial Court and did not take into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court and the High Courts on the jurisdictional point and other laches in conducting the trial and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, convicting the accused for the alleged charges has to be established by the prosecution and not by the petitioner/accused. The Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the present case and simply confirmed the order of the trial Court. He would further submit that there was delay in filing the complaint. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 19.06.2014, whereas, the complaint was given only on 26.06.2014. There was an enormous delay of 7 days in filing complaint, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Even though, the complainant stated that she was not feeling well and therefore, did not lodge the complaint on time, it is seen that, during the relevant time i.e., between the date of occurrence and the date of the complaint, she attended her office. Therefore, the reasons stated for the delay in filing the complaint is not acceptable. The trial Court failed to consider the same and convicted the petitioner and the Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the same. The findings given by the Magistrate is erroneous. He further submitted that the accused preferred a complaint against the de facto complainant, the respondent Police instead of registering the case, investigated