Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMU versus STATE THROUGH

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramu v. State through - Criminal Revision Case(MD) No.421 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2379 (18 July 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18/07/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN

Criminal Revision Case(MD) No.421 of 2005

Ramu .. Petitioner Accused

Vs

State through

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station

Cr.No.256 of 2001 .. Respondent Criminal Revision petition filed under section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 16.06.2005 made in C.A.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.669 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Periyakulam dated 10.01.2005.

For Petitioner ... Mrs.D.Sevasena For Respondent ... Mr.L.Murugan,GA (Crl.Side) :O R D E R



This Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 16.06.2005 made in C.A.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.669 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Periyakulam dated 10.01.2005.

2.The prosecution case is briefly as follows:

(a)P.W.1, Perumal, was the Head Constable. P.W.2 Pandiaraj was also the Head Constable. P.W.3 Balakrishnan was the Inspector of Police. They were all working in Theni Police Station. On 03.04.2001, at about 17.30 hours, P.Ws.1 to 3 went along with training Deputy Superintendent of Police to 'C.D. Video Vision' shop situated in Forest Road, Theni. The shop was inspected by P.W.3, the Inspector of Police. At that time the accused who was in charge of the shop ran away.

(b) P.W.3 recovered two video cassettes namely Evil Dead III and Terminator 4, English films under Athatchi Ex.P.1 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The cassettes are M.Os.1 and 2 respectively. There is no independent witnesses and hence P.Ws.2 and 3 signed in the Athatchi. Then, they came to Police Station and P.W.3 registered a case in Cr.No.286 of 2001 under Section 4 read with 15(2) Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder Regulation Act and prepared Ex.P.2, the printed First Information Report.

(c) On 09.04.2001, the accused appeared before Police Station and P.W.3 arrested him and remanded to judicial custody. He recorded the statement of witnesses and filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 4 read with 15(2) Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder Regulation Act.

3. Before, the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 and 2 were marked and M.Os.1 and 2 were produced. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 4 read with 15(2) Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder Regulation Act and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

4. Aggrieved over the said judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai in C.A.No.28 of 2005, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the trial Judge.

5. Challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court, this Revision has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.

6. Point for Determination: Whether the Criminal Revision is maintainable? POINT:

(i) The power of jurisdiction of the revisional Court is limited. This Court can interfere only when there is miscarriage of justice or the material evidence was overlooked by both the Courts below.

(ii) P.W.1, Perumal, was the Head Constable. P.W.2 Pandiaraj was the Head Constable. P.W.3 Balakrishnan was the Inspector of Police. They were all working in Theni Police Station at time of occurrence. On 03.04.2001, at about 17.30 hours, P.Ws.1 to 3 went along with training Deputy Superintendent of Police to 'C.D. Video Vision' shop situated in Forest Road, Theni. The shop was inspected by P.W.3, the Inspector of Police. At that time the accused who was in charge of the shop ran away. P.W.3 recovered two video cassettes namely Evil Dead III and Terminator 4, English films under Athatchi Ex.P.1 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The cassettes are M.Os.1 and 2 respectively. (iii) The prosecution did not obtain any independent witnesses. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that there were no independent witnesses at the scene of occurrence. The shop situated in Theni Forest Road. It would show from his cross examination that the shop situated in a busy area. There was Government servants' quarters. There was one auto stand near the video shop. So, evidence of P.W.1 that there was no independent witness in the scene of occurrence is highly artificial.

(iv) Secondly,P.W.1 admitted that training Deputy Superintendent of Police also accompanied them at the time of raid. But he did not know his name. It would show that the training Deputy Superintendent of Police did not accompany with him and so he was not able to know his name. His evidence also would show that he was not able to say that whether there is Government quarters? It is clear that he did not visit the scene of occurrence on the date of occurrence. His evidence further disclose that there was an auto stand, shops near the accused shop. On consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that there is no independent witness is not acceptable. He is also not able to say about the recovery of cassettes at the time of raid.

(v) P.W.2 claimed to be present in the scene of occurrence at the time of recovery of cassettes. But, he also did not say about the recovery of cassettes. He is not able to say that in which direction the accused ran away. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 also did not visit the scene of occurrence at the time of raid.

(vi) Evidence of prosecution would show that the accused was only a Manager. Prosecution is unable to find owner of shop. The investigating officer did not take any steps to find out who is the owner of shop. It is not a grave crime to say that investigating agency unable to find out the truth in a small place like Theni. This would go to the root of the case of prosecution.

(Vii) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Information Report was despatched to Court belatedly. First Information Report was registered on 03.04.2001 at about 17.30 hours. But, the same reached to Court on 09.04.2001 at about 11.30 hours. The prosecution must give any reason for the delay in despatching the First Information Report to Court. There is no explanation given by prosecution about the delay in despatching the First Information Report to Court. It also creates a doubt in the case of prosecution.

(viii) In the decision reported in Mahadevan Vs. State: Asst. Commissioner of Police (1990 L.W.Crl. 401), this Court held that Prosecution is maintainable only against the licensee who has taken the licence to run a video shop, and not an employee. In this case also, the licensee was not prosecuted. Only Manager was shown as accused. As per the decision relied on the above judgment, the prosecution cannot succeed. It did not follow the mandatory provision. Hence I find no merit in the prosecution case and there was miscarriage of justice and material evidence was overlooked in the judgements of both the Courts below.

7. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted from all the charges. The fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.

arul

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court No.3,

Madurai.

2. The Judicial Magistrate,

Periyakulam.

3. The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.