DURARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order in crl. M. P. No. 422 of 2003 in C. C. No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate no. I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. These petitioners have been arrayed as A11 to a14 in C. C. No. 1 of 2003 and they have been charged under Section 120 (B), 420, 468 and 477 (A) IPC and not under any provision under the Prevention of corruption Act. Only A1 to A5 have been charged under the provision of prevention of Corruption Act also apart from the above sections of law under ipc.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY petitioners herein are lorry drivers under a8, the owner of Sri Pachayamman Transport, Chennai. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr. P. C. , for the relief of discharge before the trial Court in C. C. No. 1 of 2003 against all the charges levelled against them. The learned trial Judge had dismissed the said petition, which necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court by way of this revision.

(3.) THE prosecution relied on the statement of selvi. R. Nambiar, Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, manali, and Chennai. But a perusal of the above said statement will go to show that there is nothing adverse to the interest was said by the above said witness against these lorry drivers. She would say that bitumen were transported through lorries bearing registration numbers TCY 8929, TNO-7a9199, tno 7a0199, TNO 4 D 3133 and TNO 1 D 0999, on various dates from the month of april-1998 to May-1998. Her statement is bereft of particulars regarding the quantity of bitumen transported through these vehicles at the point of loading and the quantity of bitumen delivered at the point of delivery.