PANDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/accused have come forward with this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum - Fast Track Court No. I, Madurai, dated 29.05.2007 made in S.C.No. 65 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months RI, to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - each, in default, to undergo 1 month RI and the second appellant/accused No. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default, to undergo 1 month RI.

(2.) THE case of prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:

(3.) ASSAILING the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that A -1 to A -3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. The ingredients of Section 353IPC have not been made out. P.W.2 - Pandian is not a Government servant and he is working as Supervisor in a Bar, which was run by the private individual. Even though he is the complainant, he disowned his complaint. Even, as per the evidence of P.W.2, there is no evidence to show that the appellants herein have prevented the public servant from discharging his official duty, since P.W.2 is not a public servant. The Trial Court, without considering the same, convicted the appellants under Section 353 IPC.