STATE Vs. PASUPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the State against the Order dated 3.5.1988 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 56 of 1988 in S.C. No. 235 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli discharging the ninth accused from that proceedings exercising the power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) A few facts are necessary to be stated for disposing this case. S.C. No. 235 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli arise out of Crime No. 145 of 1985 on the file of the Ovary Police Station. This Complaint was given by one Chidambaranathan. This complaint was lodged by him against five accused namely Suyambanandam, Sarkunam, Sekar, Durairaj and Ayyadurai. The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is one Ramasamy Nadar left his garden house in the evening of 8.10.1985 for purchasing vegetables and then he did not return till 8 a.m. on 9.10.1985. On this allegation, the complaint was lodged stating that the accused mentioned in that complaint and already referred to above are responsible for his murder. This complaint was registered at 3 p.m. on 9.10.1985 in the said Police Station, as "Suspicious Death". One Ganesan has signed at the foot of the complaint as a witness. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses had been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) ACCUSED 8 and 9 filed an application before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the materials available in this case are not sufficient to proceed against them and on that ground prayed for discharge. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for accused 8 and 9 as well as the Public Prosecutor, who opposed the petition, held that the materials available in this case make out a prima facie case to proceed against the eighth accused and dismissed the petition. As against the ninth accused, the learned Sessions Judge had applied his mind to the entire records available in this case, that is, records produced by the Police along with the final report as well as the records produced by ninth accused and came to the conclusion that the materials disclosed by the prosecution and the defence, are not sufficient enough to proceed further as against the ninth accused and thus discharged him. This Order is challenged in this action.