Madras High Court
Chellapandi vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2017
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.251 of 2008
1.Chellapandi
2.Jeyam
3.Kasimayan
4.Seeniyammal
5.Bala ... Petitioners / Appellants /
A1 to A5
-vs-
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Sedapatti Police Station
In Cr.No.128 of 2003
Madurai District ... Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant
PRAYER: This criminal revision case is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records from the Lower Courts
and set aside the Judgement of the Appellate Court passed by the Additional
Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai, in C.A.No.24 of 2007, dated
08.02.2008, confirming the Judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District, in C.C.No.5 of 2004, dated 23.01.2003.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh
Additional Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
The criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners / accused 1 to 5 against the Judgment, dated 08.02.2008, made in C.A.No.24 of 2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, confirming the Judgment, dated 23.01.2003, made in C.C.No.5 of 2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District. The revision petitioners / accused 1 to 5 were found guilty by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced as follows:
Sl.No. Petitioners / Accused Conviction Sentence / Fine
1.
P1 / A1 147, 148 and 326 I.P.C.
To undergo R.I. For 30 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, six months R.I. for the offence u/s 326 IPC.
2. P2, P3 & P5 / A2, A3 & A5 147 and 323 I.P.C.
Fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, two months S.I.
3. P4 / A4 147 and 325 I.P.C.
Six months S.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, two months S.I.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.12.2003 at about 08.30 p.m., while P.W.1/defacto complainant namely, Kannadichamy was standing in front of one Selvam Tea Stall, all the accused appeared before P.W.1/defacto complainant in which accused-1 had a knife and others had wooden logs and iron rods and A1 told towards the defacto complainant that he betraying the Ganja hidden by me to the police, then attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant on his lip with knife and caused injury, then A2 attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant on his left elbow with wooden logs and caused injury, then A3 attached P.W.1/defacto complainant on his right elbow with wooden logs and caused injury at that time P.W.1/defacto complainant raised alarm, after his wife namely Rani came to the place of occurrence while A4 attacked the wife of P.W.1/defacto complainant on her lip and caused injury then A5 slapped at her cheeks by hand and thereby charges were framed against the petitioner / A1 under Sections 147, 148 and 326 I.P.C., against the second petitioner / A2 under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., against the third petitioner / A3 under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., against the fourth petitioner / A4 under Sections 147 and 325 I.P.C. and against the fifth petitioner / A5 under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C and all the petitioners / accused were charged for the offence under Section 149 I.P.C.
3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked and on the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.
4. (i) P.W.1/defacto complainant-Kannadichamy in his evidence had deposed that on 07.12.2003, at about 8.30 p.m., while he was standing nearby his house, in front of the tea shop of one Selvam, all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and A1 armed with knife and others armed with wooden logs and iron rods and A1 shouting towards P.W.1/defacto complainant saying that he betrayed by giving information about the Ganja concealed by him to the police and saying so attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant on his lip with knife and caused injury, then A2 attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant on his left elbow with wooden logs and caused injury, then A-3 attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant on his right elbow with wooden logs and caused injury at that time P.W.1/defacto complainant raised alarm, after which his wife namely Rani came to the place of occurrence while A-4 attacked the wife of P.W.1/defacto complainant on her lip and caused injury then A-5 slapped on her cheeks by hand. At that time the neighbours who were near the place of occurrence intervened and separated them all and thereafter, P.W.1/defacto complainant approached the police station and lodged a complaint Ex.P1. Thereafter, P.W.1/defacto complainant had taken treatment for four days as in-patient in a private hospital at Madurai.
(ii) P.W.2-Rani, who is none other than the wife of P.W.1/defacto complainant in her evidence had deposed that on hearing the noise she had rushed to the place of occurrence and at that time, the first accused Chellapandi had cut the lower lip of her husband/P.W.1/defacto complainant with knife, the second accused Jeyam had attacked her husband with iron rod and caused injury on his left hand and A-2 was also holding a stick on her hand, the third accused Kasiammal had attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant with stick and iron rod and caused injury on his knee. A-5 Bala had attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant and caused injuries on his right leg and hip. A-4- Seeniammal had caught hold of P.W.1/defacto complainant. When P.W.1/defacto complainant questioned about the attack made by her on his husband, A-4 had attacked with stick on her mouth which caused damage to her teeth with bleeding. P.W.2 further deposed that she along with her husband gone to Sedapatti Police Station and lodged a complaint. The police referred them to Madurai Government Hospital, however, they gone to private hospital and taken treatment as in-patients for 5 days.
(iii) P.W.3-Dharmar, who is none other than the father of P.W.1/ defacto complainant and father-in-law of P.W.2, in his evidence had deposed that he had known the accused. He had also known about the occurrence. But he do not remember the date of occurrence and the occurrence had happened at the night time one year back, in front of the tea shop which is about 20 feet away from his house. When he had gone to the place of occurrence, the occurrence was over and at that time the accused were having sticks and iron rods. But he was unable to identify who was holding the particular weapon. P.Ws.2 had sustained bleeding injuries on her teeth and jaw and P.W.1/defacto complainant had sustained bleeding injuries on his jaw and left shoulder and all over the body. There were 10 to 20 members, but, since it was dark, he could not identify them. After the occurrence P.Ws. 1 and 2 had gone to police station.
(iv) P.W.4 who is none other than the younger brother of P.W.2 and brother- in-law of P.W.1/defacto complainant, in evidence had deposed that in the year 2003, one day at about 8.30 p.m., when he was in front of house, the occurrence had taken place at about 10 feet away from his house. He had gone to the place of occurrence after the occurrence was over and at that time P.W.1/defacto complainant was lying on the ground with injuries. A teeth of P.W.2 got broken. He had not seen the occurrence, whereas he had heard that Accused Jeyam, Kasi, Mayian and some other persons have attacked P.W.1/defacto complainant and P.W.2/his wife. He had brought P.Ws. 1 and 2 to police station. Since P.Ws. 5 to 8 had not supported the case of the prosecution, they were treated as hostile witnesses.
(v) P.W.9 is the Doctor attached to Madurai City Hospital and he had deposed about the injuries found on the body of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the treatment given to them. P.W.10/Head Constable attached to Sedapatti Police Station at the time of occurrence had deposed that on 07.12.2003 at 21.30 hours P.W.1/defacto complainant had come to the police station and lodged a complaint. After receiving the said complaint P.W.10 had registered a case in Crime No.128/2003 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC and prepared FIR Ex.P6 and since the Sub-Inspector of Police was not in station, he took the case for investigation and on the next day viz., 8.12.2003 at 9 am., he proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and forwarded the case records to the Investigating Officer for further investigation. P.W.11, Investigating Officer, took the case for investigation and after completion of investigation, filed a final report against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC.
5. The second accused-Jeyam was examined as D.W.1 and in his evidence, he had deposed that on 7.12.2003 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was drinking tea he was attacked with stick, stone and bitten and he had sustained injuries on his right leg, left chest and backside of his head. He had given a complaint against P.W.1/defacto complainant and his associates at the Sedapatti Police Station and on the next day early morning at 5 p.m., he had gone to hospital where he was admitted as inpatient for four days. The Wound Certificate is Ex.D1.
6. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, and other materials placed on record, had convicted the petitioners / accused as stated above. Against which, the petitioners / accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.24 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, and the same was dismissed on 08.02.2008, by confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused submitted that the main grounds for revision are that the occurrence is non-est and free fight with the petitioners / accused that had happened at the village and that P.W.1/defacto complainant and his associates are the aggressors and that the second petitioner in this case/second accused had suffered injury whereas when he had gone to the police station to prefer the complaint, the Inspector of Police, without properly conducting the investigation, had arrested him and foisted a false case against him. Though several defence were raised by the petitioners / accused it is a well settled law in the criminal cases, the duty of the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion is not enough for convicting the petitioners/accused. Where as, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to follow the legal principles and that the Judgments of the Courts below suffer from non- application of legal mind and the Judgments have been delivered on the basis of surmises without any legal evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused further contented that P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and P.W.2 who are husband and wife are stated to be injured witnesses, and that there are several contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and moreover P.Ws.4 to 8, who are independent witnesses, have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.9 is a Doctor from a Private Hospital and his evidence is not a concrete and clear as to how and in what manner the injured witnesses were referred to the Hospital. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1/defacto complainant, while deposing before the Trial Court had admitted that he had given a written complaint at the Police Station, whereas in F.I.R., at Column No.4 as well as the contents of the F.I.R., would reveal as if P.W.1/defacto complainant made an oral submission to the Police and it was recorded in the F.I.R. thereby, the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant completely falsifies Ex.P.6 and it clearly shows that the earlier information given to the Police had been suppressed and that Ex.P.6 was subsequently created for the purpose of registering the case against the petitioners / accused, which creates suspicion and doubt with regard to the prosecution case.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused further submitted that the prosecution had burked the vital documents and manipulated documents to suit their case. The genesis of the case had been suppressed thereby creating suspicion with regard to the prosecution case and that it is the definite case of P.W.2 that after the occurrence, they went to Usilampatti Government hospital and took up first aid and thereafter, they went to Private Hospital, Madurai and took treatment there, whereas it is the definite evidence of PW 9 the Doctor of the Private Hospital that the intimation was sent to the Police Station, which creates suspension with regard to the registration of the complaint and further continuation of investigation. If the Accident Register at Usilampatti Government Hospital and the intimation sent from the Private Hospital had been brought before the Court and they would be able to give the truth of the incident and the actual number of persons who have involved in the incident, whereas the prosecution has suppressed these documents so as to project the false story and falsely implicated the petitioners.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused further submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant, with regard to the medical evidence. P.W.1/defacto complainant, in his evidence, had stated that he had sustained injuries on his left shoulder and hip, but in Ex.P4, the above said injuries were not mentioned and it had been mentioned that P.W.1/defacto complainant had sustained injuries on his backside, however, it is not a case of P.W.1/ defacto complainant that he had sustained injury on his backside.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused with regard to the occurrence would submit that it is the definite case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place on night hours and there was no light and that being so it was very difficult to identify the place of occurrence and state about the manner in which the occurrence took place and to state who the actual aggressors are and that thereby the earlier information given to Usilampatti Government Hospital as well as to the Police Station had been suppressed. Further, the evidence of the prosecution side cannot be believed. Though in the F.I.R., it had been stated that the occurrence had taken place on 07.12.2003 at 08.30 p.m.in front of Selvam Tea Shop, the said Selvam was examined only as a mahazer witness instead of eye witness and that he had also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.
12. Yet another submission projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused is that the Courts below failed to take into consideration the evidence of the second petitioner / A2, who examined himself as D.W.1 and who had spoken about the injury sustained by him during the altercation between him and the de facto complainant and he had marked Ex.D1, namely, wound certificate with regard to the injury sustained by him at the time of occurrence on the left chest and the head injury suffered by him on the back of the head and injury in the leg. Further the above said injuries are not superficial injuries and that it is clearly proved by D.W.1 that the de facto complainant/PW 1 is the aggressor and it is the admitted case of the prosecution and that D.W.1 was arrested when he had gone to the Police Station to give a complaint with regard to the injuries sustained by him, thereby proving that the victims had been made as accused based on the false complaint foisted against them. The counsel for the petitioners contended that if only the version of the prosecution is true, the prosecution would have marked the medical memo, the Accident Register copy issued at Usilampatti Hospital.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborated in respect of description of the weapon used by the accused and further P.W.1/defacto complainant deposed that the accused attacked with knife and iron rod, whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that the accused attacked with knife and wooden logs. In order to prove the case, the prosecution had not taken any steps to seize the weapon and there being several material contradictions between the injured witnesses, the non-recovery of the weapons assumes importance and is fatal to the prosecution, since it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that whether the above injuries were caused to the victim by the alleged weapon, which is stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. It is the case where P.W.1 is the aggressor and having attacked the petitioner/A2 in the free fight suffered injuries and whereas it has been exaggerated and projected as if they were attacked by the petitioners with weapon. Thereby, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. When a specific defence had been projected that the incident had happened only at the time when the de facto complainant and his associates attacked the second petitioner/A2 and there was a free fight and since the Police failed to register the case on the complaint given by the petitioners / accused and also falsely implicated them in the case registered by them. Further the prosecution had also failed to explain the injuries suffered by the second petitioner/second accused.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused submitted that the failure of explanation about the injury suffered by the second petitioner/ second accused is vital to the prosecution of the case. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners / accused placed reliance upon the decision in Bhagwan Sahai and another vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016 Cri.L.J.3154, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: (paragraphs 7 and 8).
?7. The High Court has also noted that both the sides had taken a plea that the land in question where the occurrence had taken place is in their possession. One of the injured Malli Devi-PW6 also deposed, as noted by the High Court, that the parties were having dispute with the accused over land. The High Court has also noted the Judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar [1976 (4) SCC 394] which was relied upon by the counsel for the accused persons in support of private defence and for acquittal on the ground on non-explanation of death and injuries on the side of the accused. The High Court drew correct inference from the aforesaid judgment but proceeded to convict the appellants on the misconceived ground that since both the parties had withheld the origin and genesis of the occurrence and since it cannot be determined as to which party was the aggressor, the case had to be decided against the accused persons treating it as a case of free fight between the parties.
8. The aforesaid view of the High Court is devoid of legal merits. Once the Court came to a finding that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and also failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused including death of father of the appellants, the only possible and probable course left open was to grant benefit of doubt to the appellants. The appellants can legitimately claim right to use force once they saw their parents being assaulted and when actually it has been shown that due to such assault and injury their father subsequently died. In the given facts, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for not offering any explanation much less a plausible one. Drawing of such adverse inference is given a go bye in the case of free fight mainly because the occurrence in that case may take place at different spots and in such a manner that a witness may not reasonably be expected to see and therefore explain the injuries sustained by the defence party. This is not the factual situation in the present case.?
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused further placed reliance upon the decision in Mohar Rai vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1281, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:(paragraph 9).
?9. For the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that the trial court as well as the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the defence of the appellants on the sole ground that the version put forward by them having been rejected by the court in G.R. Case 1376/TR/20 of 61/63 in the court of the Munsif-Magistrate Ist Class, Sasaram the same cannot be again considered. We think that the defence of the appellants is highly probabilised by three important circumstances, namely (i) the same was put forward immediately after the occurrence, (ii) it satisfactorily explains the injuries found on the persons of the appellants while the prosecution evidence fails to explain those injuries, and (iii) the prosecution evidence itself shows that the Mohar Rai could not have used Ex.III and therefore his version that weapon was thrust on him is probabilised.
16. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners / accused that while letting in evidence, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the accused had proved that it is a case where they have exercised right of private defencce and that they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The counsel further contended that taking into consideration the failure to mark important documents on the side of the prosecution would go the show that the occurrence could not have happened as projected by the prosecution and that the prosecution has wilfully burked/suppressed vital documents so as to suppress the real case and that on every probability of having happened in the manner projected by the petitioners and submitted that in such a case benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioners/accused.
17. Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below had taken into consideration the evidence of the witnesses in the correct perspective and found the petitioners / accused guilty and convicted them. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are injured witnesses have categorically deposed the manner in which, they suffered the injuries.
18. Now taking into consideration the documents on record and hearing the counsels, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioners / accused and the de facto complainant have previous enmity and that the occurrence is said to have happened in front of the tea shop. The independent witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries suffered by A2 in this case and further the weapon said to have been used in the occurrence have not been seized by the Investigation Officer. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the earliest documents namely, copy of the Accident Register at Usilampatti Government Hospital said to have been issued to P.W.2, who is the wife of the defacto complainant, was not produced and marked and moreover, the intimation sent from the private hospital to the respondent / Police was also not produced and marked, and if these documents were produced before the Court, it would have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Failure in producing the vital documents by the prosecution and the defects in the investigation creates doubt in the prosecution case. As projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a case, where there was previous enmity between the petitioners/ accused and the defacto complainant and there could have been a free fight between the petitioners/accused and P.W.2. The second petitioner Jayam had examined himself as D.W.2 and he had deposed that on 7.12.2003 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was drinking tea he was attacked by P.W.1 and his associates with stick, stones and was bitten and that he sustained injuries on his right leg, left chest and on the backside of is head and he had given a complaint against P.W.1 and his associates to the respondent and he had also been admitted in a hospital for four days and the wound certificate in respect of the injuries suffered by him has also been marked as Ex.D1. No investigation has been done on the complaint given by the second petitioner. The prosecution has not investigated the case in a proper manner so as to prove who the actual aggressors are and thereby creating a valid doubt that the incident had happened when the petitioners have exercised the right of private defence. Right of Private Defence: Section 97 deals with the subject matter of right of private defence. The plea of right comprises the body or property of the person exercising the right or of any other person, and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass and attempts at such offences in relation to the property. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99. To plea a right of Private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him.
19. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 2 SCC 737 , Suresh Singhal V State (Delhi Administration) where it has been held in paras 21 to 23. ? 21. The right of private defence is contemplated by Section 97 of IPC which reads as follows:-
?Section 97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.? Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend? First ? His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
Secondly ?The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.?
22. In Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another[1], this court laid down the following principles which emerged upon the careful consideration and scrutiny of a number of judgments as follows:(SCC p.351,para 58) ?58. The following principles emerge on scrutiny of the following judgments:
(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.
(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-
defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.
(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension.
(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.
(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self- defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
(ix) The Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.
(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.?
23. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that the appellant reasonably apprehended a danger to his life when the deceased and his brothers started strangulating him after pushing him to the floor. As observed by this Court a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the appellant apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.?
20. Here is a case where the 2nd petitioner had suffered injuries and he had examined himself and marked the wound certificate as Ex D1.The wounds are not superficial. He had sustained injuries on his right leg,left chest and on the backside of his head and admittedly the petitioners had been arrested when they had gone to the police station and further the complaint given by the 2nd petitioner had been suppressed. The documents recorded at Usilampatti Hospital and the intimation given by the Private Doctor have also been suppressed. No investigation has been done by the respondent to conclude who the real aggressors are and no explanation had been given to explain the injuries suffered by the 2nd petitioner. In view of the above the case of the petitioners and the defence projected by them could be highly probabilised and I find that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District, and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai, are hereby set aside. The fine amount if any paid by the petitioners are directed to be refunded to them.
To:
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
.