V.Saravanan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.07.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI V.Saravanan

...Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Cr.No.156 of 2007)

...Respondent

Criminal Revision case filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai dated 26.07.2022 confirming the judgment made in CC.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur dated 08.02.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Durai Vaiyapuri for Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 5

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking quashment of the order passed in Crl.A.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai dated 26.07.2022, confirming the judgment made in CC.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur dated 08.02.2019.

2. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 427 & 447 of IPC and in respect of the offence u/s. 427 of IPC, the petitioner was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and in respect of the offence u/s. 447 of IPC, the petitioner was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week, vide judgment in CC.No.12 of 2008 dated 08.02.2019, which appeal was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.16 of 2019 dated 26.07.2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

Page No.2 of 5

3. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. A perusal of the material documents placed on record particularly the impugned order reveals that, the respondent has proved their case through oral and documentary evidences. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal on the ground that the trial court has not properly appreciated the materials, however, a perusal of the materials reveals that the trial court has analyzed the evidences of the prosecution witnesses threadbare and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

5. The infirmities and inconsistencies pointed out by the petitioner does not in any manner affect the substratum of the prosecution case and the inconsistencies are not of such nature which would in any manner affect the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the order passed by the court below. Page No.3 of 5

6. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already paid the entire fine amount. In such view of the matter, this Court is of view that, no further adjudication is necessary in the present revision.

7. For the reasons aforestated, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

12.07.2024 skt Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Polur.

3. The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Cuddalore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Page No.4 of 5

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt 12.07.2024 Page No.5 of 5