JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.61 of 2012 dated 13.12.2019, by the Principal Session Judge, Namakkal, convicting the appellants under Section 447 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant owned land ad-measuring 2.53 acres comprised in S.F.No.197/1A3 along with a Sago Factory will all accessories and cement tanks at Seerapalli. He purhcased the said property through a Court auction conducted by the Sub Court, Namakkal in REP.No.147 of 1989 in O.S.No.84 of 1989. The Court also confirmed the auction on 13.06.1990. Since then, it was in possession and enjoyment of the defacto complainant. He leased out the said property in favour of one Senthil, Nallan, Venkatesh and Manoharan. The said Manoharan had taken the said mill on lease. A1 is the daughter of one A.S.Periyasamy. A2 is the husband of A1. The said A.S.Periyasamy is the predecessor in title over the above said property, which was purchased by P.W.1. The accused are residing at Attur main road, Rasipuram. However, A1 was claiming that she and her family had share in the said Sago Factory, which was refused by the defacto complainant. Therefore, there was enmity between both the families. While being so, on

23.10.2011 at about 02.00 p.m, the accused trespassed into the premises of the factory with an intention to cause damage and loss to the properties of the defacto complainant. They had demolished a cement tank of the Sago factory in the above said property with the help of JCB. The value of the demolished cement tank is said to be Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.810 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Section 447 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act as against the accused. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance, in S.C.No.61 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge, Namakkal.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to 16. The prosecution had also produced M.Os.1 to 3. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and they marked Exs.D1 to 3. The Court marked Exs.X1 to 11. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 447 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, each with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, each, in default to undergo nine weeks simple imprisonment. The appellants were also found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, each and imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment, each. Aggrieved by the same, this present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 23.10.2011. Whereas, the complaint was lodged only on 02.11.2011, after a period of ten days. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, it is fatal to the entire case of the prosecution. In fact, for the very same occurrence, the first appellant lodged a complaint as against the relatives of P.W.1 on 24.10.2011 and the same was registered in Crime No.807 of 2011. However, the respondent closed the said FIR as “mistake of fact” and charge sheeted the complaint lodged by P.W.1, which was lodged belatedly after a period of ten days from the date of occurrence. That apart, the property in which the alleged occurrence had taken place is not owned by P.W.1. The prosecution failed to prove that the said property is owned by P.W.1. According to P.W.1, the property was purchased from the Court auction.

6. A perusal of the delivery receipts in respect of the said property revealed that the property is comprised in S.No.193/1A3. Whereas, the alleged occurrence