RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners accused challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.58 of 1998.

(2.) AS against the conviction judgment for the offences under Sections 71(16) and 75(1)(c) of Chennai City Police Act rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1II in S.T.C.No.2581 of 1994, the petitioners accused preferred appeal in C.A.58 of 1998 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, coimbatore and later by the impugned order dated 14.9.1999, confirmed the judgment passed by the lower court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore the petitioner/accused have preferred the criminal revision.

(3.) THE prosecution examined PW. 1 one constable attached to the complainant station and his evidence disclosed that on the date and time of occurrence, these two accused were trying to paste a wall - poster on a wall in front of Gandhipuram bus stand. It is also stated by PW. 1 that when a person who was standing there questioned the acts of the accused they abused him. This is the only evidence that is available against the accused. It is immaterial that the accused subsequently filed a petition admitting the offence. Because once accused had denied the offence, it is for the prosecution to adduce evidence and place sufficient materials to prove that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences have been brought on record. P.W.1 is the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution and it is only to the effect that on the night of 10.12.1994 these accused were trying to paste a poster on a wall situated opposite of the bus stand. There is no evidence to show that the accused were trying to paste a wall poster on a wall belonging to public or private person. Pasting of a wall poster on a private property will also amount to an offence under Section 71(16) of the Act provided permission of the owner of the private property is not obtained. There is no evidence through. PWl as to whether the wall on which the accused tried to paste the poster belongs to the public or the State or to a private person. There is also no evidence to show that the accused were trying to paste the wall poster without taking the permission of the owner. Therefore the necessary ingredient to constitute on offence under Section 71(16) of the Act has not been proved and therefore the conviction of the accused for the said offence can not be sustained.