- (1.) CHALLENGING and impugning the judgment dated 5.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikkal, in S.T.R.No.1087 of 2006, this criminal revision case is focussed.
(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (a) The police, on receipt of complaint from the revision petitioner herein, namely, Narpiravi, obtained permission from the Magistrate to register a case and investigate into it, as Section 171(E) of IPC refers to a non-cognizable offence, and laid the police report before the Magistrate under Section 171(E) read with Sec.34 of IPC as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted. (b) During enquiry, on the prosecution side P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined Exs.P1 to 4 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. On the accuseds' side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged. Animadverting upon such acquittal, this revision is focussed by the de-facto complainant on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The lower Court failed to take into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3-the eyewitnesses and also the M.Os.1 to 5 and simply, by picking holes in the prosecution case, acquitted the accused. Heard both sides.
(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in interpreting the evidence on record, by the lower Court. The whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures as found exemplified from the records is that the revision petitioner Narpiravi was one of the contestants in the panchayat election in Tirunallar Panchayat Constituency. Whereas A1-Murugaiyan also was a contestant in the same constituency for the Panchayat election. According to the revision petitioner A1 to A3, in furtherance of their common intention tried to bribe the voters by giving articles like M.Os.1 to 5. The de-facto complainant virtually caught A3 read handed and handed him over to the police. However, the police official would narrate the incident as though the revision petitioner came to the police station on 23.6.2006 and lodged a complaint submitting M.Os.1 to 5 and he did not state anything about the revision petitioner having produced before him A3.;