PAKKIYA KONAR Vs. KUNJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioneraccused have preferred the revision, challenging, the conviction and sentence imposed on them in C.A.No. 193 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Session Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judicial Magistrate, Jayakondam in C.C.No. 164 of 1992 in which, the petitioners were found guilty under section 427, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: THE respondent aged about 70 years filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under section 427 IPC. THE complainant is owning landed property in survey No.285 in Malsinthamani Village. Adjacent to this land, about one acre of land belonged to one Velayutham Chettair and it was also in the enjoyment of the complaint and her husband for a period of 15 years. THEre was a north south fence dividing these properties for the last 50 years. On the east and north of the fence, there are fruit bearing trees. On 3.4.92 the petitioners alleging that they have purchased the land from the Chettiar removed the fence to a distance of 115 feet and caused damage. THEy also attempted to cause damage to the fruit bearing trees and thereafter, the respondent sent a complaint to the high police officials. As a result of the cutting of the fence, damage has been caused to the extent of Rs.500.

(3.) THE next contention put forward by the learned counsel is that there is inordinate delay in giving the complaint. THE occurrence took place on 3.4.92, but the complaint was given on 22.4.92. THE respondent is a woman and, as such, she could have waited to secure the help of other persons before launching the complaint. THE delay is not material in such type of cases. It is further stated that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the petitioners to cause any damage to the property and, such the offence under section 427, IPC is not made out even assuming that the petitioners have cut the offence. THE learned counsel relied upon section 425, IPC relating to the defenition of mischief.