Madras High Court
Ravindran vs State By on 10 July, 2014
Author: C.T. Selvam
Bench: C.T. Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2014
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.806 of 2008
Ravindran .. Petitioner
Vs.
State by
Station Officer
Virudhachalam Police Station
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district
Crime No.444/05 .. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 31.03.2008 made in C.A.No.6 of 2007 on the file of learned Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3) at Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District, confirming the judgment and conviction dated 30.11.2006 made in C.C.No.133 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Nithyanandam
For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, G.A (Crl.Side)
*****
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 294 and 353 IPC.
2. The petitioner stands convicted and directed to pay fine of Rs.250/-in default one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 294 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 353 IPC. The prosecution case was that at about 8.35 p.m. on 04.12.2005, while PW.1, a traffic police, was guiding traffic at the entrance of the bus stand opposite to Archana hotel in Virudachalam junction, the accused got down from his car bearing registration No.TN-31-AA-1111 and abused P.W.1 in filthy language and prevented him from doing his duty by attacking him. The same resulted in registration of Crime No.444/2005 for offence under Sections 294 and 353 IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that at about 8.35 p.m on 04.12.2005, a traffic constable was guiding traffic at the entrance of the bus stand opposite to Archana hotel in Virudachalam junction road. The petitioner driving a car bearing registration No.TN-31-AA-1111 abused such constable in filthy language asking if he had no work other than going about his business on the centre of the road. The petitioner is alleged to have used his right hand against the left shoulder of the constable to push him aside.
4. Pursuant to investigation in the case a final report came to be filed leading to trial in the case in summary suit No. 133/2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam. Before the trial court prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the accused nor were any exhibits marked.
5. Under judgement dated 30.11.2006, Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs.250/- i.d 1 month S.I. for offence under Section 294 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i.d 3 months S.I. for offence under Section 353 IPC. The appeal of the petitioner in C.A.No.6/2007 before the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3) at Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District was dismissed on 31.03.2008. Hence the petitioner is before this court by way of revision.
6. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl) side.
7. The Appellate court in confirming the decision of the trial court interalia observed that only fine to be imposed by the trial court and such decision did not call for any interference. Though prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, only P.Ws.3 to 6 are individual witnesses, the rest being police personnel. P.Ws.3 to 6 were examined to speak to the occurrence proper but they have not supported the prosecution case and have been treated hostile. The prosecution case finds no support from independent and non partisan witnesses.
8. Though independent witnesses have turned hostile, the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 Police constables, regards the occurrence and found the same corroborated by the entry there regards in Ex.P.2- Pocket diary of P.W.1. That the act of the petitioner pushing P.W.1 has not been noted in such pocket diary has rightly been viewed as a minor discrepancy.
9. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction entered upon by the courts below. However, finding substance in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the occurrence itself is a heat of the moment affair, that the petitioner bears no ill-will towards P.W.1, that the petitioner is a man of good reputation and standing in society and the conviction adversely would tell upon him, this court is inclined to afford the petitioner the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
10. Accordingly, this Court would confirm the findings of conviction and sentence of the Courts below but invoke provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, this Court directs that the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct, on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety in a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court viz., Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam, undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so, during a period of six months of the date of the bond and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. It is made clear that in keeping with Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner shall not suffer any disqualification, attaching to his conviction.
11. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.07.2014.
Index: Yes/No Website: Yes/No C.T. SELVAM, J.
kpr To
1.The Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3.The Station Officer Virudhachalam Police Station Virudhachalam, Cuddalore.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 600 104.
5.The Probation Officer, Virudhachalam.
Crl.R.C.No.806 of 200810.07.2014