V K DORAIRAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Dorairajan, the petitioner herein, faced a trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in C. C. No. 190 of 1976, for an offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. An appeal against the conviction and sentence was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Salem , in C. A. No. 79 of 1979. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The instant revision case is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution briefly is as follows: 1. P. W. 1 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur, in 1976. On 8th December, 1976 at about 9-30 p. m. , the petitioner gained entry into the office-cum-residence of P. W. 1 by sending a chit through P. W. 3 the, camp clerk who who gave it to P. W. 2 orderly who in turn gave it to P. W. 1. On entering the room, the petitioner gave a petition Exhibit P-4 addressed to the superintendent of Police, with a. copy to P. W. 1, requesting recommendation of the assignment of the poramboke land adjacent to, the police station in lieu of his 12 cents of patta land encroached by the police station. It is the prosecution case that thereafter he placed a cover on the table. When P. W. 1, checked it. he found ten 50 rupee currency notes. Immediately P. W. 1 called his camp clerk P. W. 3 and Sub-Inspector, P. W. 4. who were there present. THEy saw the cover taken by P. W. 1 with notes as aforesaid. Subse-quently, a case was registered against the petitioner for an offence under section 165-A, Indian penal Code.

(3.) IN support of his averments, the petitioner examined d. Ws. 1 to 3. The Courts below have assessed the evidence of the defence witnesses and correctly came to the conclusion that they are not worthy of credence and found that this case was not foisted on the petitioner as stated by him.