Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.A Brief substance of the petition in Cr.M.P.No.3256 of 2016 is as follows:

The prosecution has lodged final report against the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Sections 120(b) and 149 of IPC. The Court has taken cognizance of the case only under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 506(ii), 120(b) and 149 of IPC and taken the case on file as C.C.No.81 of 2013. The charges were framed against the respondent accused only for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 506(ii), 120(b) and 149 of IPC. A perusal of the entire records reveals that a case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act was made out which is triable only by the Court of Sessions and a charge under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act has to be framed and the case has to be committed to the Court of Sessions.

19.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Logu @ Loganathan v. State in Crl.A.(MD)No.273 of 2008, wherein it is stated as follows:

“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 cause 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.”

The object of the Act makes it 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 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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

24. The case against the petitioner and others is that they formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and they removed the stone pillars erected along the boundaries and damaged the property by dumping quarry waste and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners and others scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The Police filed a chargesheet under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and under Sections 120(b) and 149 of IPC. On 11.07.2013, at the time of taking cognizance of the offence, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur has taken up the case on file under Sections147, 447, 294(b), 506(ii), 120(b) and 149 of IPC and he has made an endorsement that the alleged property do not come under the definition of TNPPDL Act and that he deleted the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. On 17.12.2014, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, has framed charges under Section 147, 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses. On 19.07.2016, the respondent has filed a petition under Section 216(1)(4) of Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.3256 of 2016 and that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petition was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate on 10.02.2021 and he has committed the case to the Sessions Court. Against the order, the petitioner has filed this revision.