P RAMASAAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the complainant, P. W. 1 in S. C. No. 115 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.

(2.) THE brief facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this Revision are as follows:-The petitioner is a member of the Adi Dravidar Community and native of Perumukkal Colony, he has 4 daughters and a son. His last daughter Radha's marriage was fixed on 28. 6. 1996. On the previous day i. e. , on 27. 6. 1996, the bridegroom party came to the petitioner's house with customary gifts of marriage and other items. At about midnight the accused set fire to the petitioner's house in which the entire belongings of the petitioner's family including the cash, jewels, groceries brought for celebration of marriage, utensils, clothes worth around Rs. 1 lakhs got burnt. On 28. 6. 1996 morning the Revision Petitioner lodged a complaint to the Brahmadesam Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 326 of 1996 under Section 436 IPC and a charge sheet was also filed. The petitioner is an illiterate and was not aware of the provisions of law invoked in his case and the consequences. Only on 19. 3. 2003 when the petitioner was examined as a witness, he came to know that his complaint was registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and therefore he had sought legal aid as per the advice given to him. He filed a petition in CMP. No: 90 of 2003 on 4. 4. 2003 seeking alteration of the charge under Section 436 IPC to Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. But while typing the Petition, instead of Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, a typographical error occurred wherein it was mentioned as 3 (2) (v) of the said Act. The trial court rejected the Petition filed by the revision petitioner on the ground that the same has been filed only to protract the proceedings and that the trial of the case is partly over and also that the petition was not maintainable since the same was not filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, but by a private lawyer. Hence, aggrieved over the said order, this revision has been filed to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to further investigate the case and to file a proper charge sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate for being committed to the Special Court formed for the purpose of the said Act.

(3.) IN spite of notice, there is no representation for the other respondents. I have gone through the detailed order passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, by which he has rejected the said Petition filed by the revision petition on three grounds viz. , (i) that the petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings; (ii) Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act (wrongly typed in the Petition) could not be invoked; and (iii) The Petition has been filed not through the Additional Public Prosecutor, but by a private lawyer.