High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Tolgate Subramani alias Mani v. State rep. By - Criminal Revision Case No.166 of 2006  RD-TN 1548 (20 April 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20/04/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN
Criminal Revision Case No.166 of 2006
1.Tolgate Subramani alias Mani
2.Muthuselvam alias Selvam
3.Viji alias Kajamalai
4.Kirapatti Selvam .. Petitioner
accused 1 to 4 Vs
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Cantonment Police Station
Tiruchirapalli. .. Respondent complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy in C.M.P.No.16 of 2006 in S.C.No.234 of 2005 dated 25.1.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan for
For Respondent : Mr.Siva Iyyappan
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) :ORDER
The Revision is directed against the order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy in C.M.P.No.16 of 2006 in S.C.No.234 of 2005 dated 25.1.2006.
2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: The complaint was given by one Revenue Inspector, Trichy (South). On 29.12.2004, the complainant along with his men went to remove the encroachment in Senkulam village and at about 7.00 a.m. all the four accused came with iron rod, stick, stones and damaged the tractor bearing Reg.No.T N 45 N 3268 and threatened him. When the Tahsildar asked them to move from that place, they did not obey his words. Hence they were arrested.
3.Before the Sessions Judge, a petition was filed under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the case because the consent of the Commissioner of Police was not obtained. On going through the materials available on record, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition on 25.1.2006. Hence the revision has been filed by the accused.
4.In the petition it is stated that Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflages. The learned counsel for the accused relied on the decision relating to 1989 Criminal Law Journal Page 1833 and the Judgment reported in 1988 Criminal Law Weekly 807 and argued that the provisions of Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage and to prosecute any person for the offences under Sections 186 or 188 IPC, the Court shall take congnizance only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. The learned counsel further stated that without perusing the materials on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., cannot be used to connect the other offences, which is not correct. On consideration of materials on record, I find that the above said decisions are not helpful to the petitioner.
5.In this case, the learned Judge has observed that the accused has committed the offence. The merit of the case cannot be decided at this stage. According to him, eight witnesses have been examined and they have to be cross examined. On consideration of the materials on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), I am of the view that the Revision Petition is not maintainable. Hence the revision is dismissed. The trial Court will give opportunity for both parties to adduce evidence.
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Inspector of Police,Cantonment Police Station Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court, Madurai.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.