Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tnppdl act in S.Vinayak vs The State Rep. By on 28 August, 2025Matching Fragments
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2022 in S.C.No.152 of 2018, thereby dismissing the petition to discharge the petitioner from all the charges.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26.03.2017 the petitioner had trespassed into the defacto complainant's school viz., National Elementary School situated at Pudareegakulam, Vadakarai, Nagapattinam District and caused damage to the Mahatma Gandhi statue situated within the school premises. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.145 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the TNPPDL Act”). After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.152 of 2018. While the case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed petition to discharge him from all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) the charges. It was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the present revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that now the respondent filed final report as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. No charges have been made out as against the petitioner as per the material produced by the prosecution. The Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is with regard to public property since it is a central Act. Admittedly, the subject property which is allegedly damaged by the petitioner is a private property and it does not belong to any government. Therefore, the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is not attracted as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm )
11. Insofar as the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, the Act is a Central Act. It is relevant to relay upon the provision under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, as follows :-
“3. Mischief causing damage to public property.— (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine” The public property also defines under Section 2(b) of the TNPPDL Act as follows:-
12. In order to prosecute the person for the charge under Section 505 (i)(b) of IPC, prior sanction even for investigating the accused is required as contemplated under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. Without prior sanction, the first respondent ought not to have filed final report. Therefore, no charge can be made without sanction. Further on perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., no one has spoken about the specific overt act as against the petitioner. All have stated that on instructions of the petitioner, other persons trespassed into the subject property and caused damage to the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. However, the case itself was registered only against the petitioner and not against anybody. The petitioner alone is charged for the offences https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, even the defacto complainant and others categorically stated that so many persons, on the instructions given by the petitioner, trespassed into the property and caused damage to the statue of Mahatma Gandhi.