R.Muthu Naliappan & Ors.  INSC 1792 (21 October 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 453-454 OF 2003
M.DHANDAPANI ... Appellant(s) Versus R.MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. ...
Challenge in this
appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court
dismissing the appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short the 'Code'). The appeal was filed questioning the order dated
20.12.2001 made in CC No. 85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode DIstrict. The allegations were to the effect that
on 18.2.1997 at about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that
the complainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the
The complainant was
questioned by respondent No. 1 as to why he had kept the shop open. The
complainant replied that the shop was kept open for the cleaning the utensils.
This does not appear to have satisfied respondent No. 1 who directed the other
two accused persons who were constables to put the accused in the jeep and
-2- The trial court
with reference to the evidence of witnesses came to hold that the accusations
were without substance and there was no material to show the alleged commission
of offence. Since the order was passed in a complaint case, appeal was
preferred by grant of leave. The High Court referred to the various conclusions
of the trial court and hold that the accusations have not been established.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court's conclusions
are contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has concluded about the
contradictions based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is pointed out that the
conclusions are at variance with the evidence on records.
We have perused the
records and after hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are satisfied
that no interference is called for. The High Court has indicated several
reasons as to why the complainant version lacks credibility or cogency.
That being the
position, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
Pages: 1 2