Madras High Court
Durai @ Darwin vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 November, 2025
Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31.10.2025
Pronounced on : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
Durai @ Darwin ... Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Pudukadai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.15 of 2013) ... Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 02.09.2022 made in S.C.No.135 of 2013 on the file of
learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.135 of 2013 dated 02.09.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2012, while the defacto complainant was working as an Executive Officer at Pudukadai Panchayat, at around 03.00 p.m. the appellant / sole accused (hereinafter referred as 'accused') came to the office of the defacto complainant and questioned her about the delay in furnishing the information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, abused her in filthy language, damaged telephone, plastic tray and plastic chairs available in the said office and also caused criminal intimidation and that thereby the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred as 'TNPPDL Act').
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai, took the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 and furnished the copies of 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 records under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on free of costs. The learned Magistrate finding that the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after compliance under Sections 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., had committed the case to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and the case was taken on file in S.C.No. 135 of 2013 and the same was subsequently made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai. After appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, upon perusing the records and on hearing both the sides, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai.
4. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6, exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and marked 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3.
3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
5. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in brief as follows:
(a) P.W.5 M.Vijayalakshmi / defacto complainant was the then Executive Officer, P.W.2 was the then Metre Reader, P.W.1 was the then Office Assistant and P.W.4 was the Sanitation Worker of Pudukadai Panchayat. The accused is a 4th ward member. On 10.12.2012, when P.W.5 was in her office room at Panchayat office, at about 03.00 p.m. the accused came to her and questioned about the delay in furnishing the information under the RTI Act. While P.W.1 was attempting to answer his question, the accused abused her in filthy language and took the telephone available in the table and threw it. Thereafter, the accused damaged the plastic tray and two plastic chairs available in the office room. P.W.1-Jikki and P.W.2-
Sobitha Banu came to P.W.5's office room and shouted at the accused and then only the accused left the office.
(b) P.W.5, after informing the incident to her higher officials, lodged a complaint before the Pudukadai Police Station on 11.12.2012 under Ex.P.2 and the Head Constable Thiru.Vijaya Kumar attached to Pudukadai Police Station received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 432 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and prepared the First Information Report under Ex.P.3.
(c) P.W.6 Thiru.Selvakumar-the then Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, receiving the copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, visited the occurrence place and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.4-Senthil Kumar @ Sam Senthil Kumar and one Sundarraj and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.5. He seized the broken parts of plastic chairs (M.O.1), broken telephone (M.O.2) and broken piece of basin (M.O.3) under the cover of seizure mahazar under Ex.P.1. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, P.W.6 filed the final report on 18.01.2013. With the examination of P.W.6, the prosecution closed their side evidence.
6. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating aspects as against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he denied the same as false and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. The accused adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.
5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
7. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2022 convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC; to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 IPC; to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
8. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in S.C.No.135 of 2013 dated 02.09.2022 on the 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that as per the FIR, occurrence took place on 10.12.2012 at about 15.00 hours, whereas, information was received by the police on 11.12.2012 at 12.00 noon even though the police station was just ½ kilometer away from the occurrence place and that FIR reached the concerned Court on 13.12.2012 at about 10.15 a.m. but the prosecution has not offered any acceptable reason or explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint and the FIR reaching the Court.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would further submit that by utilizing the broken articles collected from others, a false case was foisted, that pieces of plastic chair alone were recovered and there was no explanation with regard to the rest portion of the chair, that telephone number alleged to have been broken was not stated anywhere and no bill was produced to prove that telephone was available in the office during the time of occurrence, that P.W.1 admitted that there was no 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 cable linking the telephone was available and that there are material contradictions with regard to the articles allegedly damaged by the accused and the articles allegedly recovered by the police.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would further submit that the value of the articles allegedly damaged were not produced, that the complaint was lodged after discussions and deliberations with higher officials, that there is no evidence to show that P.W.5 was annoyed by the alleged threats made by the accused and that the learned trial Judge, without considering the above material aspects and without proper discussion as to whether the offences alleged were proved, has proceeded to record the conviction in a mechanical fashion and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that P.W.5 herself has given proper explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint as she had to inform to her higher officials, that the evidence of P.W.5 regarding the occurrence came to be corroborated by the other eye witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, that 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 the accused had not specifically disputed his visit to P.W.5's office at the occurrence time, that the prosecution has proved the recovery of the broken articles through the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6 and that therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly appreciating the evidence available on record, has convicted the accused and therefore, the impugned conviction does not warrant interference.
13. The case of the prosecution is that since there was delay in furnishing the information sought for by the accused under the RTI Act, he came to the office of P.W.5 and questioned about the delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the prosecution has not collected any evidence regarding the application submitted by the accused under the RTI Act and the reply given by the office of P.W.5. P.W.5 (defacto complainant) and P.W.6 (investigating officer), in their cross-examination, would admit the same. P.W.5, in her evidence, would say that at about 03.00 p.m. on 10.12.2012, the accused came to her office and questioned about the delay in giving reply under the RTI Act and when P.W.5 was answering him, he abused in filthy words and threw telephone available in the table and also damaged the plastic 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 tray and two plastic chairs available at the office and that when the accused was continuously raising issues with her, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to that place and shouted at the accused and sent the accused out. P.W.1 would say that the accused abused in filthy words questioning the delay in furnishing the information and he broke the telephone by pulling it down and also damaged plastic tray and one plastic chair and when herself and P.W.2 had shouted, the accused left that place. But P.W.2, in her evidence, would say that only after hearing noise, she came to the room of P.W.5 and found that telephone, one tray and two plastic chairs got damaged and that herself and P.W.1 had shouted and immediately, the accused run away from that place.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, it is pertinent to note that the other eye witness P.W.3 Radhakrishnan had not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, he was treated as hostile. Though he was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing was elicited in their favour.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would mainly 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 contend that the accused being a 4th ward member prevented the higher officials of P.W.5 from laying road by closing the water body and only at the instigation of the higher officials, the present complaint came to be lodged. During cross-examination, P.W.5 was asked as to whether the accused had obtained any stay order for laying roads by closing the water body, she would say that she does not remember. When it was asked whether PWD officials stopped the work subsequent to the stay order, she would feign ignorance.
16. Admittedly, the incident was allegedly occurred at 03.00 p.m. on 10.12.2012 and the police station situated at a distance of ½ kilometer from the Panchayat office. But, the complaint was lodged before the Pudukadai Police Station at 12.00 noon on 11.12.2012. P.W.5 would admit that no complaint was lodged on 10.12.2012 the date of occurrence. P.W.6, in cross-examination, would admit that no information was received about the occurrence on 10.12.2012. According to P.W.5, she had informed the incident to her higher officials and thereafter, lodged the complaint on the next day. P.W.5, in cross-examination, would admit that on the date of occurrence itself she informed to her higher officials through phone. It is 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 not the case of P.W.5 that the delay was occurred in getting permission from the higher officials for lodging the complaint. P.W.5, in cross- examination, would say, “rk;gtk; ele;j md;W fhty; epiyaj;jpy; Gfhh;
nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd; mLj;j ehs; jhd;
nfhLj;Njd;. ehd; vdJ cah; mjpfhhpf;F jfty;
nfhLj;J mtuJ MNyhridapd; Nghpy; jhd; Gfhh;
nfhLj;Njd; vd;why; jfty; nrhy;yptpl;L Gfhh; kD nfhLj;Njd;. rk;gt jpdj;jd;W Nghd; %ykhf vdJ cah; mjpfhhpf;F jfty; nfhLj;Njd;. Kjy; ehs; 3 kzpf;F ele;j rk;gtj;jpw;F kWehs; fhiy 12 kzpf;F jhd; Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;.”
17. Even according to P.W.5, she had informed the incident to the higher officials through phone on the date of occurrence itself and if that be so, neither P.W.5 nor the prosecution has not offered any acceptable reason or explanation for lodging the complaint at 12.00 noon on the next day.
18. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.2-complaint given by P.W.5, she stated that the accused had damaged documents and chairs available in the office. But according to the prosecution, on the next day i.e., on 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 11.12.2012, they have recovered broken piece of plastic chair, broken telephone and broken piece of plastic basin. But except plastic chair, other articles does not find place in Ex.P.2-complaint. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, P.W.5, in her complaint, has not furnished the nature and the particulars of the documents and number of chairs alleged to have been damaged by the accused. Moreover, P.W.5, in her complaint, has stated that the accused caused damages to the tune of Rs.5,500/- and the list allegedly given by P.W.5 came to be marked during cross-examination of P.W.5 as Ex.D.1, wherein, she has valued the damaged chairs at Rs.3,400/-, BPL phone at Rs.1,750/- and tray at Rs.350/-, totalling Rs.5,500/-. Admittedly, P.W.6 has recovered Orbit phone and not BPL phone and the same came to be admitted by P.W.6.
19. Now turning to the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, though P.W.5 has stated in her complaint that the accused used two abusive words, but in her evidence before the trial Court she would refer about one word, whereas, P.W.1 would refer the other word. P.W.5, in her complaint as well as in her evidence, has not stated that she felt annoyance by the alleged abusive words. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and others Vs. K.Lalitha reported in MANU/SC/1805/2022, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“7.Section 294(b) of the IPC talks about the obscene acts and songs. Section 294 of the IPC as a whole reads thus:
"294.Obscene acts and songs - Whoever, to the annoyance of others -
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
8.It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The following passage from the judgment authored by Justice K.K. Mathew (as his Lordship then was) reported in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799) explains as follows:
14/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 “The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin, [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words:
“……. the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., 354 US 476 (1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of ‘obscenity’ is the “substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires”. Mr. Justice Harlan observed that in order to be ‘obscene’ the matter must “tend to sexually impure thoughts”. I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are ‘obscene’ and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC”.15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
9.It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.”
20. It is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Latheef Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2014 (2) KLT 987, wherein also, it has been held that abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as envisaged in 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 Section 292 and 294(b) IPC and that to make it punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must be appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave or corrupt persons.
21. Even assuming for arguments sake that the accused had uttered abusive or filthy words, there is no material to show that it caused annoyance to others. It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.5 or other witnesses have stated that they felt annoyed. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC are not made out.
22. Regarding Section 506(1) IPC, according to the prosecution, the accused threatened P.W.5 to kill her if she reveals the incident to police. But admittedly, P.W.5, in her evidence, would say nothing about the alleged criminal intimidation. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2015 7 SCC 423,
11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
17/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 "503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation"
would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.”
23. In the case on hand, P.W.5's evidence does not align with her complaint contentions. Moreover, there is no evidence that she felt criminally intimidated by the alleged threats. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is no material to suggest the threats were real and substantial. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 506(1) IPC are not established.
19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022
24. Regarding the offence under Section 353 IPC, Section 353 IPC penalizes assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant while they are carrying out their official duties. In the case on hand, P.W.5, in her complaint or in her evidence, has nowhere stated that the accused attempted to assault her or used criminal force against her. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is no specific evidence that P.W.5 was prevented from discharging her official duty.
25. Regarding the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, as already pointed out, there are material contradictions in the recovery of case properties M.O.1 to M.O.3. Though P.W.5 in her complaint has stated that the accused had damaged documents and chairs, there is no evidence that documents were allegedly damaged. As already pointed out, Ex.P.2- complaint does not say about the alleged damages to the tray or telephone available at the office. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that telephone was very much available in P.W.5's table at that time. P.W.1 would admit that there was no wire connecting the said 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 telephone. Though the prosecution has recovered only broken piece of plastic tray and plastic chair, there is no explanation about the remaining parts. Moreover, there are contradictions with regard to the number of chairs damaged. Considering the above, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the case of the prosecution that the accused damaged phone, tray and chairs at P.W.5's office room, is highly doubtful.
26. The prosecution failed to address or clarify the material contradictions, but the learned trial Judge, without considering the above material aspects and the contradictions above referred and also the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, has recorded conviction and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai in S.C.No.135 of 2013, dated 02.09.2022 is set aside. The appellant is not found guilty under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and is 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled and sureties, if any, shall be discharged. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
27.11.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm Pre-Delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.593 of 2022 Dated : 27.11.2025 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm )