The concept of 'Honourable Acquittal' is not recognized in criminal law, and acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile does not entitle the accused to an honorary acquittal.

JUDGMENT

(PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to declare the acquittal order dated 19.07.2016 made in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Dharapuram as Honourable Acquittal.)

1. The petitioner/A1 in S.C.No.41 of 2014 who was acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram by judgment dated 19.07.2016 filed this revision petition seeking to declare the acquittal passed in the judgment as Honourable Acquittal.

2.The gist of the case is that on 17.12.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. near Dharapuam Five road junction, flex board was placed by Kongunadu Munnetra kazhagam for an agriculture meeting stated to be held in Karur. The flex board was placed near Surya Bakery in Five road junction, Dharapuram and the flex board was valued Rs.1,800/-. This flex board was damaged by the petitioner and other accused due to prior enmity and political difference. Likewise on the same day at about 4.30 p.m, another flex board which was placed near the entrance of Dharapuram new bus stand was also damaged. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.5820 of 2010 on 17.12.2010 on the complaint of P.W.1, the Organizing Secretary of Kongunadu Munnetra Kazhagam, Dharapuram. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed which was taken on file in S.C.No.41 of 2014 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 to D.W.3 examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D11 marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and the other accused. Now the petitioner seeks to declare the acquittal as honorary acquittal. Hence, the above petition is filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court failed to consider that Section 4 of the TNPPDL Act, 1992 is attracted in this case even on a demurrer admitting the case of the prosecution. In this case no fire or explosive substance has been used which shows the malafideness on the part of the respondent police to falsely implicate the petitioner. Further in this case, the defacto complainant without license or permission erected the flex board and banner in the public places, namely, near the bus stand and five junction road. It is the bounden duty of the police to remove the unauthorized erection of flex board, on the other hand had falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. Admittedly, in the complaint/Ex.P1, P.W.1 admits that there is two rival factions in the party and the faction of Thaniyarasu could be the reason behind the damage to the flex board. In the FIR/Ex.P2, it is recorded that unknown persons committed the offence and under what circumstances, the petitioner and another were arrayed as accused is not known. He further submitted that the petitioner had been made as a scapegoat and made to face the trial on a false case. Hence, the defacto complainant is liable for punishment upto three years as per Section 285-B IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- as per the orders of this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.273 of 2008 in the case of Logu @ Loganathan vs. Inspector of Police, Thanjavur reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 7126 held that ordinary mischief caused by any individual in a fight, they cannot be brought under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and it has become a routine practice of the Police to implicate even the individuals who allegedly caused damage of property worth about Rs.100/- or more, such practice should be stopped herewith.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case FIR was registered for occurrence which had taken place at two places, one at the Five road junction and another near the bus stand. For these two incidents, material object in respect of five road junction alone was produced after eight months on 08.07.2011 and no property was produced for the incident that took place near the bus stand. The Trial Court though refers to the same in p