Madras High Court
Sri Nithyasaranakathantha vs The State on 20 November, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.08.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
CRL.R.C.No.1757 of 2011
Sri Nithyasaranakathantha
S/o. Sri Thiyagarajan
of M/s.Sri Nithyananda Ashram
Girivalam Road, Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Petitioner / Defacto
Complainant
-vs-
1.The State
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Thiruvannamalai Gramiya Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Sivababu ... 2nd Respondent / Accused
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401
of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order of acquittal dated 10.10.2011
passed by the learned Principal Assistant Session Judge,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District in S.C.No.59 of 2011,
acquitting the accused herein for the offences under Sections 447,
294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(i) of Public Property (Damages and
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
loss) Prevention Act, 1992 and consequently convict and sentence the
second respondent for the above offences.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala,
For M/s.G.Bala & Daisy
For R1 : Ms.V.Saratha Devi,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
For R2 : Mr.K.Narayanan
ORDER
The defacto complainant is the revision petitioner herein. The defacto complainant is the Office Bearer of M/s.Sri Nithyananda Ashram, Girivalam Road, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. He has filed this criminal revision case to set aside the order of acquittal dated 10.10.2011, passed by the learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District, in S.C.No.59 of 2011, acquitting the accused / second respondent herein for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Damages and loss) Prevention Act, 1992 and consequently to convict and sentence the second respondent for the above offences.
2.It appears from the records that the defacto complainant has filed a complaint before the Thiruvannamalai Rural Police Station, http://www.judis.nic.in 3 alleging that on 02.03.2010 at about 09.30 P.M., the accused has criminally trespassed into Sri Nithyananda Ashram, which is situated in Girivalam Road, Thiruvannamalai, and uttered obscene words against the witnesses Krishnamoorthy and Rajamayanandha in a public place and also criminally intimidated them by uttering the following words:-
“Nla; ahUlh Mrpuk eph;thfp Njtpbah grq;fNs> vd;dlh Mrpukk;
elj;JwPq;f> epj;ahde;jd; ,e;J kjj;jpw;Nf ,Of;F;' vd nghJ ,lj;jpy;
mrpq;fkhd thh;j;ijfshy; NgrpajhfTk;> ',dpNky; jpahd gPlNkh> MrpukNkh elj;jpdhy; cq;fisnay;yhk; xopj;J tpLNtd;' capNuhL tplkhl;Nld;;.” and also damaged the chairs of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.900/-
(Rupees Nine Hundred Only).
3.Based upon such information, the respondent police, after investigation, has filed charge sheet on the similar lines for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The said charge sheet has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thiruvannamalai and has been numbered as P.R.C.No.16 of 2011 and committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.59 of 2011.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4.It appears that the case has been made over to the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge (Principal Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, and charges have been framed against the accused under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and also marked M.O.1 to M.O.4. On consideration, it appears that the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge (Principal Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, by order dated 10.10.2011, has ordered acquittal and hence, the defacto complainant has approached this Court by way of filing this Criminal Revision Case.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / accused and perused the materials available on record carefully.
6.After hearing the parties, it is seen that the final report has been filed by the police for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.This Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.253, 254, 270 and 271 of 2016, dated 11.02.2016, has held as follows:-
“I am of the opinion that as Section 8 of the TNPPD Act, specifically prohibits the other Courts from trying the case relating to TNPPD Act, the Assistant Sessions Court cannot try the case and there can be only one Court of Session in each division sitting at different places. Therefore, by virtue of Section 8 of the TNPPD Act, I am of the considered view that the Sessions Court alone can try the cases relating to TNPPD Act and not the Assistant Sessions Court which is subordinate to the Principal Sessions Court.”
8.Hence this Court finds that the learned Sub Judge is not a competent Court to try the offences under TNPPDL Act and accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai, by order dated 10.10.2011, in S.C.No.59 of 2011, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, and the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai is hereby directed to take up the case on his file on the very same number viz., S.C.No.59 of 2011 and dispose of it in accordance with law. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9.The Registry is directed to send back the case papers to the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt, the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamali, shall issue necessary summons for appearance of the parties and to dispose of the case, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
10.With these observations, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Thiruvannamalai, by order dated 10.10.2011, in S.C.No.59 of 2011, as confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.110 of 2010 dated 30.08.2011, is set aside.
20.11.2018 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Myr/JRL http://www.judis.nic.in 7 To
1.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Gramiya Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Myr/JRL Order made in CRL.R.C.No.1757 of 2011 20.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in