PACHAMUTHU; S MANI; T SEETHARAMAN; E P SENGODAN; K SIGAMANI; P SEMMALIKANNAN; T DHAKSHINAMOORTHY Vs. M MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants/complainants have preferred the present criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2009 in C.C.No.277 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

(2.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, while passing the impugned judgment in C.C.No.277 of 2006 on 22.12.2009 had categorically, inter alia, observed that .... in between the Appellants/Complainants and the Respondent/Accused, there were enquiries going on at the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and in fact, P.W.4 the Head Constable had stated that he had not gone inside the temple and therefore, he was not in a position to know what had happened inside the temple. Further, P.W.6 had also deposed at the time of occurrence, when he was looking into the accounts, no one scolded and resultantly came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the Respondent/Accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and found him not guilty and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Being aggrieved against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 22.12.2009 in C.C.No.277 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, the Appellants/complainants have preferred the present instant Criminal Appeal before this Court.