JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.43 of 2017 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 (herein after referred to as “the TNCP Act”), a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default the accused shall undergo a period of imprisonment of one month and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages & Loss) Act 1992 (herein after referred to as “the TNPPDL Act”) a period of imprisonment of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default the accused shall undergo a period of imprisonment of one month.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.09.2016, at about

15.15 hours, the appellant went to the bakery belonged to the defacto complainant and scolded him with filthy language. He also threatened him with dire consequences and in addition to that damaged the fridge, show- case and other articles kept in the shop by using wooden log. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.867 of 2016. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence under Section 75(1)(c) of TNCP Act, Section 506(i) of IPC and Setion

3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document has been marked. On a perusal of oral and material evidence, the trial found the guilty of the appellant for the offence under Section 75(1)(c) of TNCP Act, Section 506(i) of IPC and Section

3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no chain of circumstances to draw the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence. The prosecution failed to prove the motive for the alleged occurrence by the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 never whispered about the motive behind the crime. Therefore, without motive, the prosecution failed to prove the charge as against the appellant. That apart, even according to the case of the prosecution, the appellant entered into shop of the defacto complainant and damaged the articles. Therefore, the TNPPDL Act would not attract as against the appellant. Further the trial Court already acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section

506(ii) of IPC. Therefore, he prayed to allow the present appeal.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the owner of the bakery situated at 100 feet road, Coimbatore. P.W.2 was working as tea master in the bakery owned by the defacto complainant. Both are cogently and convincingly deposed to prove the charges framed as against the appellant herein. Therefore, the conviction passed by the trial Court doesn't warrant interference from this Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6. Heard Mr.P.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent police.

7. According to P.W.1, he owned bakery at 100 feet road, Coimbatore. On 14.09.2016 at about 3.15 p.m., the appellant went to the shop and abused him using filthy language. He also damaged articles kept in the show and threatened him with dire consequences. The appellant caused damages to the fridge, show-case and other articles kept in the bakery. On the same day, P.W.1 lodged complaint and the said complaint is marked as Ex.P.1. The wooden log which was used by the appellant was marked as M.O.1 and the broken glass pieces