Madras High Court
Logu @ Loganathan vs State Rep By on 27 September, 2018
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27.09.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Crl.A.(MD).No.273 of 2008 Logu @ Loganathan ... Appellant/Accused No.1 Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur. (Crime No.122/2007) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 14.05.2008 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Thanjavur, in S.C.No.77 of 2008 and acquit the appellant. !For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravanakumar ^For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 14.05.2008, in S.C.No.77 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge(FTC-I), Thanjavur, in and by which, the appellant/A1 was convicted for offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPPDL Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one week.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
P.W.1 is residing at Mariammankovil Street, Thanajvur and running a grocery shop. On 10.04.2007 at about 09.30 p.m., the accused 1 and 2 came to the said shop and asked the whereabouts of her son and abused her in filthy language and also damaged her shop. P.W.2, who is the sister of P.W.1, was also present at the time of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, which is marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.122 of 2007 under Sections 294(b) IPC and 3(1)TNPPDL Act, which is marked as Ex.P.4.
(ii)Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.4 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.5) in the presence of witnesses. From the place of occurrence, P.W.4 seized a piece of broken glass, which is marked as Ex.P.6 and enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the seized broken glass to the Court under Form 95.
(iii)P.W.5, Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and arrested the accused/A1 on 17.04.2007 and remanded him to Judicial custody.
After completion of investigation, he filed a final report against the accused/A1 under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
(iv).Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 5 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 5) were examined and 6 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.6) were exhibited and M.O.1 was also marked. On the side of the accused, neither a witness nor a document has been filed.
(v).On completion of trial, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Thanjavur, found the accused/A1 guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A1.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire prosecution is doubtful and the FIR would create a serious suspicion over the manner in which, the alleged occurrence has taken place. Admittedly, prior to the occurrence, the accused had already lodged a complaint against the son of P.W.1. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed and the FIR has been registered with inordinate delay and the said delay has not been explained. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is highly doubtful and no independent witness has been examined. Since the entire prosecution is doubtful, the appeal may be allowed.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly spoken about the nature of violence caused by the accused and hence, he prays for dismissal.
5.In the light of the aforesaid submissions, now it has to be decided as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.
6.P.W.1 is running a grocery shop near to the place of occurrence. According to her, on 10.04.2007, A1 and A2 came to the shop and asked about her son and also abused her in filthy language, besides, the accused damaged the shop. Immediately, P.W.1 made a complaint and FIR has also been registered. P.W.2, who is none other than the sister of P.W.1, also supported the evidence of P.W.1. She has also spoken about the alleged damage, whereas, the FIR has been registered only on the next day ie., on 11.04.2007 at about 14.00 hours. Though the prosecution has explained the delay in registering the FIR, the same has been despatched to the Court only on 12.04.2007 and hence, the said delay has not been explained. Though P.W.1 has deposed that there was a damage to the shop, the prosecution has not even filed any photographs as to what was the nature of the damage and it was also admitted by the investigating officer and no independent evidence was examined by the prosecution. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 indicates that on the date of occurrence the police reached the spot, conducted the investigation and arrested the accused. When that being so, filing the FIR belatedly creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution. The above facts clearly indicate that the occurrence has been suppressed in this case. Therefore, the entire prosecution is highly doubtful. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, the trial Court has also convicted the accused.
7.It is to be noted that the amendment to Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, came into force on 04.08.1994 providing the punishment of the persons, who actually causes damage or loss to the private property. Merely, such amendment has been brought under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992, even in ordinary crime of mischief the individual has been brought under TNPPDL Act. It is curious to note that the amendment to Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, has been brought, keeping in mind that the ordinary act did not provide any punishment or compensation for the loss of damage caused by any person during political meeting or communal, language or ethnic group procession. But, only to make those persons, who are indulging in violence, the amendment was brought in Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. It is relevant to extract the object of the amendment Act 46 of 1994:-
?Amendment Act: T.N.Act 46 of 1994 The Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 59 of 1992) was enacted to prevent widespread damages to public property by enacting a comprehensive legislation providing for punishments of the persons who actually cause damage or loss to the public property and to make the political parties or communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities liable to pay compensation in respect of damage or loss caused to any public property during such processing, assembly, meeting, agitation, demonstration or other activities. Widespread damages to private property are also being caused during procession, meeting, agitation, demonstration or other activities organized by political parties or communal, language or ethnic groups. The provisions of the said Act do not provide for the payment of compensation and for the punishment in respect of the damage or loss caused to private property. It has, therefore, been decided to amend the said Act suitably providing for punishments of the persons who actually cause damage or loss to the private property and to make the Political parties or communal, language or ethnic group which organised such processing, assembly, meeting, agitation, demonstration or other activities liable to pay compensation in respect of damage or loss caused to any private property also.
The provisions of the said Act do not also provide for appeal against the decisions of the aforesaid authority in deciding the claim for compensation. It has, therefore, been decided to provide a forum of appeal for the above purpose.?
8.The very object of the amendment makes it very clear that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, as stood before the amendment was enacted to prevent damage or loss caused to any private property during political parties or communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities. Originally, there was no provision to make a loss for the private property and also punishment for causing damage to the private property. Therefore, it was decided to include the private property in the amendment. The object of the Act makes it very clear that only during such political party agitations or ethnic agitations, demonstration or other activities or communal clash if any private properties are damaged to fix the liability on such groups, the amendment has been brought in. The object itself is to compensate the loss of the private properties for the damage caused by the said groups. Therefore, I am of the view that ordinary mischief caused by any individual, in a fight, they cannot be brought under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. It is a routine practice of the police to implicate even the individual, who allegedly causes damage of property worth about hundred rupees under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Such practice should be stopped herewith. The object of the Act has to be given preference. Not in every case, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act can be invoked. Considering the above and also the facts of the case, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused.
9.In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Thanjavur in S.C.No.77 of 2008 dated 14.05.2008 against the appellant/A1 is set aside. The appellant/A1 is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any paid shall be refunded to the appellant/A1. The appellant/A1 shall be released forthwith from the prison, if he is no longer required in connection with any other case. Bail bond executed if any, shall stand terminated.
To
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.