ORDER Heard all the parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order of acquittal dated 23-9-94 in CC.128 of 1993, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar. 3. The respondents 1 to 10, who were the accused, were facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sec. 109 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, in C.C. 128 of 1993. 4. According to the prosecution, one Rajathi wife of the petitioner, committed suicide on 11-11-1987. The respondents 1 to 10, who are related to the said Rajathi, took the jewels of 45 sovereigns from the petitioner to wear the same on the body of Rajathi, before her body was cremated. But, however, after the cremation of the said body, the respondents 1 to 10 did not return the jewels. Hence, at the instance of the complaint by the petitioner the respondents 1 to 10 were charged and tried for the offence under Sec. 406, 420 read with Sec.109 I.P.C. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, seventeen witnessses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 17, five documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-5 P.W.1 is the complainant and the husband of Rajathi and P.W.2 to P.W.16 were relatives of the deceased Rajathi and P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, in his order dated 23-9-1994 in C.C.128/93 acquitted the respondents 1 to 10 for the reasons namely: (i) there was delay of more than a year in loding the complaint as the said Rajathi committed suicide on 11-11-1987 while the complaint was lodged on 13-2-1989, namely Exhibit P-7 and (ii) no independent witness were adduced by the prosecution that the jewels were handed over the petitioner, to the respondents 1 to 4, as alleged in the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the petitioner has preferred the above revision. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below failed to consider the relevant fact that the delay in filing the complaint is due to the intervention of the panchayatars for getting back the jewels to the petitioner. 8. The learned Government Advocate contends that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to the fact that the matter was pending before the panchayatars, cannot be accepted. 9. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 10. 8. The learned Government Advocate contends that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to the fact that the matter was pending before the panchayatars, cannot be accepted. 9. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 10. Admittedly the wife of P.W.1 committed suicide on 11-11-1987 whereas the complaint, namely Exhibit P-7 was made only on 13-2-1989. therefore, there was a delay of more than a year in lodging the complaint. The reason for the alleged delay, according to the prosecution, was that the matter was pending before the Panchayatars. On the other hand, the respondent contends that making use of the alleged pendency before the panchayatars, the petitioner has fabricated the complaint and therefore Exhibit P-7 cannot be the basis for prosecution and hence claims benefit of doubt. 11. In this regard, I am obliged to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala reported AIR 1980 SC 638 , which reads as follows: "The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence." 12. Since, admittedly there was delay of more than a year in lodging the complaint and the reason for the inordinate delay, viz., the dispute was pending before the panchayatar was provided satisfactorily. The Court below has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted the respondents 1 to 10 giving them benefit of doubt. 13. Finding, therefore, no good and sufficient reason to interfere with the order of the acquittal dated 23-9-1994 in CC.128/93 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar and hence the same is confirmed. 14. In the result, revision is dismissed. No costs.