REPORTABLE

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos. 453-454 OF 2003        

M.DHANDAPANI ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    R.MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Heard.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the

Madras  High  Court  dismissing  the  appeal  under Section  378(4)  of  the  Code  of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').  The appeal was filed questioning the

order dated 20.12.2001 made in CC No. 85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum

Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode DIstrict.  The allegations were to the effect

that on 18.2.1997 at about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that

the complainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the shop.

The complainant was questioned by respondent No. 1 as to   why  he  had kept the

shop open.  The complainant replied that the shop was kept open for the cleaning the

utensils.  This does not appear to have satisfied respondent No. 1 who directed the

other two accused persons who were constables to put the accused in the jeep and

assaulted him.  

-2-

The trial court with reference to  the evidence of  witnesses  came to  hold  that the

accusations were without substance and there was no material to show the alleged

commission of offence.  Since the order was passed in a complaint case, appeal was

preferred by grant of leave.  The High Court referred to the various conclusions of the

trial court and hold that the accusations have not been established.  Learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that the High Court's conclusions are contrary to the

evidence on record.  The High Court has concluded about the contradictions based on

the evidence of PW1 and PW2.  It is pointed out that the conclusions are at variance

with the evidence on records.

We have perused the records and after hearing learned

counsel for the appellant we are satisfied that no interference is called for.  The High

Court has indicated several reasons as to why the complainant version lacks credibility

or cogency.

That being the position, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are

accordingly dismissed.

              ...................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                          (C.K.THAKKER

  ....................J.                              (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

New Delhi, October 21, 2008.