Ayyavu alias Angam and Others vs State

Janarthanam, J.—This is an application filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order in Cr. R.P. 29 of 1984 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai South, dated 5-1-1985, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence of fine imposed on the Petitioners (accused 1,2,3,5,11 and 13 to 15) by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti in C.C. 372 of 1982 dated 13-3-1984.

The gravamen of the accusation is that on the relevant date and time in question, the Petitioners and two others, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of trespassing into the land of the complainant and causing damage by removal of the bund put up by him in his land, in fact did enter into his land and caused actual damage to the extent of Rs. 1000 by the removal of the bund put up therein. It is on this accusation, the Petitioners and two others faced trial.

The trial court, on the sifting of the materials placed before it, both by the prosecution and by the defence. came to the conclusion that the Petitioners were guilty of the charges framed against them, convicted them thereunder and sentenced each of them to fine for various offences as stated in the order.

In revision, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of fine imposed under various sections by making a reduction of Rs. 30 in in the quantum of fine imposed on each of the Petitioners under various sections. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, this revision is filed praying to set aside the same.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, anticipating an argument to emerge from the learned Public Prosecutor, to the effect that when there is a specific provision under the code of Criminal Procedure, for a revision, filing of the petition u/s 482 thereof, after exhausting the remedy, by way of revision, is not maintainable, would in fact submit that the inherent power of the High Court cannot be whittled or taken away merely because there is a provision under the Code providing for revision and such a power is always there if there are materials on record to point out that there is a grave defect in the procedure or there is an illegality committed in the conduct of the trial resulting in the miscarriage of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor intruding at this juncture would submit that there cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. But what he would submit is whether the case on hand would in fact come within the proposition so stated, in the sense of there being a grave defect in procedure or illegality committed by the court below in the conduct of the trial, resulting in miscarriage of justice to the Petitioners. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor require the examination of the materials available on record for coming to any conclusion in this case. On a thorough perusal of all the materials available, on record, I am satisfied that the ocular testimony of the witnesses produced by the prosecution did in fact establish beyond any shadow of doubt the case of the prosecution by the Petitioners unlawfully entering into the land of the complainant and removing the bund put up therein and thereby causing damages to the extent of Rs. 1000. Added to this, there is also the puzzling factor of the case of the prosecution receiving adequate corroboration from the defence witnesses examined in this case. Top of all, I am unable to see either any grave defect in the procedure or any illegality committed by the Courts below causing prejudice to the cause of justice, calling for interference. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the petition fails and is therefore dismissed.