IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.03.2021

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.R.C.No.125 of 2021 &

Crl.M.P.Nos.2434 & 2436 of 2021

B.Murugesh

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State rep.by the

Inspector of Police,

Kotagiri Police Station,

Kotagiri.

...

Respondent/Complainant

(Crime No.125 of 2016)

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of

Cr.P.C. to set aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018,

dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir

Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam at

Nilgiris, confirming the oder of conviction and sentence passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri in C.C.No.13 of

2016, dated 05.01.2018.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Thilageswaran

For Respondent :

Mr.A.Madhan

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This revision petition is preferred against the judgment

passed by learned Sessions Judge [Fast Track Mahila Court],

Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018, on

22.01.2021, confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.13 of

2016, dated 05.01.2018, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Kotagiri.

2. The respondent-Police has registered the case in Crime

No.125 of 2016 against the petitioner herein for the offence

under Section 353 and 506 (i) of IPC. After investigation laid a

charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri.

The learned Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file in

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.C.No.13 of 2016. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate found

the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353

of of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year

Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default

to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also found not

guilty under Section 506 (i) of IPC and acquitted the petitioner

for the offence under Section 506 (i) of IPC. Challenging the

said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate,

Kotagiri, the petitioner / accused has filed an Appeal before

the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam at

Nilgiris. The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the Appeal

on file in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 and made over to Fast Track Mahila

Court, Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. After hearing the arguments

and also considering the grounds raised by the petitioner /

accused, dismissed the Appeal, by confirming the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, Kotagiri.

3. Challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and

sentence passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed

the present Revision.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would

submit that the occurrence took place on 05.04.2016 and

according to the defacto complainant, he said to have given

complaint on the same day and the respondent-Police has also

issued CSR on 05.04.2016 itself and the defacto complainant has

further stated that he gave another complaint on 07.04.2016.

Whereas, the Investigating Officer has stated that the defacto

complainant has not given any complaint on 05.04.2016 and he has

wrongly stated as if the complaint was given on 05.04.2016 and

however, the complaint was given only on 07.04.2016. It is

contended by the learned counsel that on 05.04.2016, the defacto

complainant conducted inspection and smoothly left the place.

Since the defacto complainant demanded bribe from the petitioner

and when he refused to give it, they foisted a false case on

07.04.2016. There are material contractions with regard to date

of the complaint itself and that will go the root of the case of

the prosecution. Both the Courts below, have failed to

appreciate the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating

Officer in this regard and they ignored date of complaint and

they failed to the apprecia