MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the defacto-complainant, examined as PW-1 in S.C.No.146/2011, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The Criminal Revision is preferred against the order of acquittal of the trial Court holding the respondents 2 and 3 not guilty of the charges under Sec. 294 (b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) The defacto complainant who is the victim of crime, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of respondents 2 and 3, is entitled for preferring appeal as per the proviso to sec. 372 Cr.P.C., 1973 Un aware of his right, he has preferred the Criminal Revision. This Court being satisfied that the petition for criminal revision is filed on the erroneous belief that, no appeal lies, in the interest of justice, this Court treats this petition for Criminal Revision as Criminal Appeal, by exercising the power under sec. 401(5) of Cr.P.C, 1973 and proceed to deal with the petition accordingly.

(3.) The revision petitioner herein has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Ramanantham on 26/12/2010 alleging that he mortgaged his 1.11 cents of land in Survey No.311 for Rs.20,000.00 to one Malarkodi w/o Narayanasamy. He already repaid Rs.10,000.00 . On 26/12/2010 at about 8.15 hrs when he went to the house of Malarkodi and made offer to pay the balance Rs.10,000.00 and asked to give back the land, Malarkodi told him that, he has already sold the property to her and he cannot ask for beat him. He went to his maternal uncle village Sakanatham and informed him about the occurrence and thereafter, reached the Police Station to give the complaint. One Arumugam of Sakanatham village was present along with the defacto complainant when the incident took place.