(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, whereby the respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted and the judgment of the learned trial Court XIII – Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dated 30.11.2012 was reversed.)

1. This appeal has been filed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.3 of 2013 dated 29.11.2019 by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C.No.728 of 2009on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 448, 427 and 506(i) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as Cashier cum Assistant Manager in M/s.T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd, who are the owners of Devi Cinema Theatre, Mount Road, Chennai. On 09.01.2009 at about 8.15 a.m., one Elumalai (A1) who was working as Duster Boy claiming himself to be the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Thiraiarangu Thozhilalargal Sangam had demanded 20 tickets for each show for the movie “Villu’ which was to be released on 12.01.2009 for which the defacto complainant is said to have asked him to approach the management as he have no power for the same. At about 8.45 a.m. when the defacto complainant was issuing tickets in the Devi Theatre ticket counter, A1 along with A2, A3 and A4 had forcefully trespassed into the ticket counter, restrained the defacto complainant and P.W.7 Ravindran one of the Company’s Director’s son and attempted to snatch away the tickets and cash from the ticket counter. At that time P.W.2, Siva Kumar who was taking picture in a camera for promotional purpose happened to take picture of the incident for which the accused had pulled him by collar and twisted the hands of P.W.2 Siva Kumar and had snatched away the camera and also damaged the camera and erased the pictures and further the accused threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 that on the same day in the afternoon if they attend the conciliation meeting at the Labour Office at Kuralagam they would be killed, they also used abusive languages for which P.W.1 had given a complaint to the first respondent who registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2009. The respondents 2 to 4 herein are arrayed as accused 2 to 4.

3. On completion of investigation, final report was filed against the accused and the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 427, 506(I), 294(b) r/w 34 I.P.C.

4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 and M.O.2. In order to disprove the charges, on the side of the accused one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked as exhibits.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 448, 427, 506(2) r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo one week rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 of I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 427 of I.P.C.; and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(1) of I.P.C.

6. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused 2 to 4/ respondents 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2013 before the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and the said appeal was allowed and the respondents 2 to 4/ accused 2 to 4 were acquitted from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has filed this criminal appeal before this Court.

7. On a perusal of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2013 reveal that the Appellate Court acquitted the accused only on the ground that the occurrence had taken place on 09.01.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 13.01.2009. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint and as such the prosecution failed to prove the charges.

8. On a perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court reveal that the defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 09.01.2009 itself, however, subsequently, it was struck off and corrected as 13.01.2009. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the complainant. Infact, it was typed one and the same was marked as Ex.P1. It was not struck off by the complainant. Though the complaint was lodged on 09.01.2009, FIR got registered only on 13.01.2009. therefore, there was absolutely no delay on the part of the complainant. The complaint was lodged immediately after the occurrence. However, it got registered only on 13.01.2009 on the file of the first respondent.

9. The relevant portion of the discussion of the trial Court is as follows:

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

10. Therefore, the trial Court rightly concluded that there was no delay in filing the complaint and the complaint was lodged on the date of occurrence on 09.01.2009 itself. Further, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and his evidence is also clearly corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.7. The camera was also produced as M.O.1. therefore, the prosecution categorically proved that A1 to A4 trespassed into the booking counter of Devi Theatre and they attempted to snatch away the tickets and cash. Further, the accused snatched away M.O.1 and abused P.W.2 by twisting his hands. However, the Appellate Court mechanically acquitted the accused only on the ground that the complaint was lodged on 13.01.2009 and there was delay in lodgment of complaint.

11. In view of the above, the judgment passed by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment passed in C.A.No.3 of 2013 dated 29.11.2019 by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, is set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C.No.728 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is restored.

12. This criminal appeal is allowed.