The amendment Act 46 of 1994 enlarges the scope of TNPPDL Act, 1992 to include damages caused to private individuals by other private individuals, as interpreted and applied by the court.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 21.12.2018 and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Triruvarur in S.C.No.14 of 2014.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.14 of 2014, dated 21.12.2018.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2013, for offence under Section 294(b) and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”), against the appellants on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by PW1. After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.8 of 2013. After completing the formalities, since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman committed the case to the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Mannargudi for disposal. Subsequently as per the direction of this Court in the case reported in 2016-2-MLJ (Crl.) 365, the case was withdrawn from the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mannargudi and taken back by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur as S.C.No.14 of 2014.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellants, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur farmed charges under Section 294(b) and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1992.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the District and Sessions Judge, Mannargudi found guilty of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992. The appellants 1 to 3 were acquitted from under Section 294(b) IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that no case was made out against the appellants and the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged occurrence. The trial Court acquitted the appellants 1 to 3 for offence under Section 294(b) IPC, since the prosecution has not established the case. The trial Court without considering the evidence and materials adduced on the side of the defence, erroneously convicted the appellants under Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1992. Since the dispute is between the two individuals and one private person damaged the property of another private person, the offence under the TNPPDL, Act, 1992 would not attract. The learned counsel would further submit that the object of the Act makes it very clear that only during the political party agitations or ethnic agitations, demonstration or other activities or communal clash if any private property are damaged to fix the liability on such groups, the amendment has been brought in. The object itself is to compensate the loss of the private properties for the damage caused by the said groups. Therefore, the ordinary mischief caused by any individual, in a fight, they cannot be brought under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The object of the Act has to be given preference. Not in every case, the Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, can be invoked. The trial Court failed to consider the said object of the Act and the fight is between the two individuals. Therefore, the Act would not attract in this case and the learned District and Sessions Judge failed to consider the same and wrongly invoked the provision of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and convicted the appellants for offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that there is no overtact against the appellants and the prosecution has