JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 14.10.2019 in S.C.No.115 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2014 at 19.45 hours one V.Gopi, the de facto complainant/Conductor and one Ramu Driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing No.TN 21 N 1040 were proceeding from Thiruttani to Sorakkapettai and when the Bus was stopped at Krishnasamuthiram Bus stop, the accused/the appellant herein who belongs to Krishnasamuthiram damaged the back side glass of the Bus with stones and thereby, caused damage to the tune of Rs.16,000/-. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 before the respondent police and registered First Information Report, which was marked as Ex.P7.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2014 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 109 r/w 2 and 3 of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992 [hereafter 'TNPPDL Act' for the sake of convenience]. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.26 of 2014.

4. After completing the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani found that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The learned Sessions Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.115 of 2017 and charges were framed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and also marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11, besides that two material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 and M.O.2. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant/accused and questioned the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he has denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

7.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged occurrence said to have been taken place on 04.03.2014. After deliberation, P.W.1/de facto complainant, who is the Conductor of the Bus preferred a complaint before the respondent/police after two days i.e. on 06.03.2014. Therefore, there was a delay in preferring the complaint and registering the First Information Report and sending the case to the Court and the delay has not been properly explained by the de facto complainant/P.W.1. Hence, the unexplained inordinate delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant is that the said Bus was damaged by the appellant and twenty other persons on 04.03.2014, but, the complaint was given against the appellant only on 06.03.2014. He would further submit that non examination of the independent witnesses i.e the passengers, who were travelled in the Bus and the persons, who were available in the alleged sc