ORDER :

This revision petition is preferred against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge [Fast Track Mahila Court], Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018, on 22.01.2021, confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.13 of 2016, dated 05.01.2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri.

2. The respondent-Police has registered the case in Crime No.125 of 2016 against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 353 and 506 (i) of IPC. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri. The learned Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.13 of 2016. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 of of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also found not guilty under Section 506 (i) of IPC and acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 (i) of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, Kotagiri, the petitioner / accused has filed an Appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the Appeal on file in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 and made over to Fast Track Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. After hearing the arguments and also considering the grounds raised by the petitioner / accused, dismissed the Appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, Kotagiri.

3. Challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present Revision.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the occurrence took place on 05.04.2016 and according to the defacto complainant, he said to have given complaint on the same day and the respondent-Police has also issued CSR on 05.04.2016 itself and the defacto complainant has further stated that he gave another complaint on 07.04.2016. Whereas, the Investigating Officer has stated that the defacto complainant has not given any complaint on 05.04.2016 and he has wrongly stated as if the complaint was given on 05.04.2016 and however, the complaint was given only on 07.04.2016. It is contended by the learned counsel that on 05.04.2016, the defacto complainant conducted inspection and smoothly left the place. Since the defacto complainant demanded bribe from the petitioner and when he refused to give it, they foisted a false case on 07.04.2016. There are material contractions with regard to date of the complaint itself and that will go the root of the case of the prosecution. Both the Courts below, have failed to appreciate the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating Officer in this regard and they ignored date of complaint and they failed to the appreciate the fact that the alleged occurrence has taken place only on 05.04.2016. Admittedly, P.W.3 and P.W.4 hostile and except the complainant, none of the witnesses have spoken about the occurrence, therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubt, however, both the Courts below erroneously held that the petitioner has restrained the defacto complainant to perform his official duty and committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, and therefore, the findings given by both the Courts below are perverse and illegal and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. Madhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Police would submit that the eyewitnesses and mahazar witnesses have not supported the case, since they are the employees under the petitioner/accused herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also given reason for ignoring the date of complaint. Since on 05.04.2016, the occurrence had happened night hours, they have given CSR, whereas, the Investigation Of