Crl.A.No.840 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date : 11.07.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.A.No.840 of 2019

G.Sakthivel

... Appellant

Versus

State through;

The Inspector of Police,

Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station.

... Respondent

(Crime No.477 of 2017)

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the

Criminal Procedure Code, to admit the appeal, call for the records in

S.C.No.103 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Krishnagiri, and allow the appeal to set aside the Judgment and order of

conviction dated 04.09.2019 and acquit the appellant.

For Appellant

: Mr. S. Gajapathi Krishnan

For Respondent

: Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar,

Government Advocate, (Criminal side)

JUDGMENT

The first accused in S.C.No.103 of 2018 has filed this Criminal

Appeal challenging the Judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.840 of 2019

Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri convicting him for the offense under

Section 353 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; convicting him

for the offense under Section 379 of IPC, read with Section 21 (1) (iv) of

the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2017 at about 8.30

a.m., in the morning within the limits of Krishnagiri Taluk, Police Station

and Krishnagiri to Hosur, National Highway Road, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, one Ganesan; A Head Constable, one Madhaiyan and another Head

constable one Sekar have involved in vehicle checking. At that time, a Mini

Lorry 1109, bearing Registration No.TN.04 – A.E. 0380, came from Salem

to Bangalore. When the said inspection parties signalled to stop the vehicle,

though the vehicle slowed down, suddenly the first accused, who has told

the other accused A2/driver of the vehicle that they are coming to catch us,

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.840 of 2019

even as he was saying so, the driver of the vehicle took off the Lorry and

speeded off. Therefore, the inspection parties informed the same to the next

check post by wireless message. As per the message, in the next check

post, the Lorry was seized along with two units of sand. Hence, a case in

Crime No.477 of 2017 was registered against two accused, for the above

said offenses.

3.During the trial, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.Ganesan, as

P.W.1; both Head Constables Madhaiyan and Sekar as P.W.2 & P.W.3;

One Purusothaman, Police Constable as P.W.4; One, Karthik, the

Observation Mahazar witness as P.W.5; P.W.6/Thavamani, is the Special

Sub-Inspector of Police, who caught hold of the vehicle at the check post;

P.W.7/Vijay, who was a witness of the Observation Mahazar; One

Assistant Engineer of PWD, who valued the minerals as P.W.8; The

Investigation Officer, as P.W.9.

4.On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined or

documents produced. Considering the evidence on record, by the Judgment

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.840 of 2019

under appeal, the Trial Court, while acquitting both the accused for the

offenses under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted the accused

for the offense under Section 353 of IPC, and Section 379 of IPC, r/w

Section 21 (1)(iv) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957, and imposed the sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved

by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is laid before this Court.

5.Heard Mr. S. Gajapathi Krishnan, learned