JOHN CLARANCE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties.

(2.) THE above revision petition is directed against the order dated 7. 11. 95 in C. A. No. 20 of 1993 on the file of the learned Sessions judge, Nagercoil, confirming the order of conviction dated 11. 3. 1993 in c. C. No. 1104 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, tirunelveli, convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 409, I. P. C. sentencing for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 1000 in default of which, three months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate contends that there is no illegality or irregularity in denying the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 inasmuch as they are government servants and no motive can be initiated against them. The reliance of Exs. P. 1, P. 2, and P. 3, being complaints, cannot be ignored, and therefore, the reliance on the same cannot be complained by the petitioner, particularly when Exs. P. 4 to P. 30 corroborate with the said complaints, namely, P. 1 to P. 3.