Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli in S.C.No.461 of 1999 dated 26.05.1999. 2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows: (a) P.W.1, Kaliammal is the resident of Muthammalpuram. She is the wife of P.W.2. She belongs to Hindu Pallar community. P.W.5, Peter was the Tahsildar of V.K.Pudur. He gave Ex.P.2, the caste certificate of P.W.1, who belongs to Pallar community and Ex.P.3, the caste certificate of accused, who belongs to Maravar community. (b) Just one year prior to the alleged occurrence, the husband of P.W.1 touched the tiffin vessel of second accused. So, the second accused created trouble, there was exchange of words. Then, on 19.07.1998, the Panchayat was convened to settle the dispute. P.Ws 3, 4, 6 and 7 were the residents of same village. P.W.2 explained the act committed by the accused. All of them asked them to forget the dispute. At that time the second accused scolded P.W.1 like that and then first accused attacked the P.W.1 with Cheppal. When P.W.1 was questioned, first accused also threatened to murder her. On hearing, unable to bear the insult caused to him, her husband leaving the place. (c) Then P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.9, who was the Inspector incharge of the Uthumalai Police Station. He received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.327 of 1998 under Sections 294(b), 355, 506(2) I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (P.A) Act and prepared Ex.P.5, the First Information Report and sent the First Information Report to concerned officials and sent a message to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alankulam through wireless and the original copy of First Information Report also despatched to Court. (d) P.W.10, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alankulam, who received the First Information Report and took up the case of investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3’O clock and prepared Ex.P.4, the Observation Mahazer and prepared Ex.P.5, the Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.8, Arumugam and Dharmaraj. Further, he recorded the statements of Kaliammal, Selvam, Periya Perumal, Hasan Mohideen, Navaneetha Krishna Pandian, Durai @ Madasami. Arumugam and Dharmaraj. At 14.30 hours, he arrested the accused at Reddiyapatti bus stop and remanded to Judicial Custody. Further, he recorded the statements of Kaliammal, Selvam, Periya Perumal, Hasan Mohideen, Navaneetha Krishna Pandian, Durai @ Madasami. Arumugam and Dharmaraj. At 14.30 hours, he arrested the accused at Reddiyapatti bus stop and remanded to Judicial Custody. On 10.08.1998, he also recorded the statement of Inspector Mothersha and received the caste certificates of P.W.1 and accused from the Tahsildar of V.K.Pudhur and recorded his statement. After completion of investigation, he has got the opinion of Public Prosecutor and filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C and S.T (P&A) Act and Section 506(1)and 34 I.P.C. 3. Before, the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 6 were marked. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R), Tirunelveli, found that the first accused guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. And S.T (P&A) Act and awarded to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the above said affence. 4. Challenging the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, the appeal has been preferred by the first accused/appellant. 5. Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved that the Appellant is guilty as per the charge stated above? POINT: (i) P.W.1, Kaliammal is the wife of P.W.2. She belongs to Schedule Caste community. The accused belongs to Maravar community. P.W.5, Tahsildar gave Exs.P.2 and 3, the caste certificates related to P.W.1 and accused respectively. (ii) A trouble started, when, the P.W.2 touched the vessel of the second accused, he scolded P.W.2 that and so there was exchange of words. The matter was referred to Panchayat. P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7 were the Panchayatdars. The panchayat was conducted and 100 persons assembled there. The alleged panchayatdars P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7 turned hostile. They did not support the case of P.W.1. Hence, I find that the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7 was not helpful to the prosecution to prove the case of Panchayat. Hence, the alleged panchayat is fatal in this case. (iii) The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 only. There is no independent evidence to substantiate the case of the alleged assault in the presence of Panchayatdars and 100 persons, who were there. But, the independent witnesses were not examined to prove the case of alleged scolding by the accused. (iii) The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 only. There is no independent evidence to substantiate the case of the alleged assault in the presence of Panchayatdars and 100 persons, who were there. But, the independent witnesses were not examined to prove the case of alleged scolding by the accused. (iv) The learned counsel raised a doubt about the complaint. P.W.1 admitted that the complaint was written by a lady, but she has forgotten her name. She deposed as follows: so, it is clear that the complaint is not having the entire case as claimed by the P.W.1. Further she told that she wrote a few words in the complaint and the remaining were written by an another lady. It would show that the complaint was written by second person. But there is no change of handwriting in the complaint. The body of the complaint and the signature of the P.W.1 are not the same. So the evidence of P.W.1 would show that she had written few words in complaint is not correct. There is a doubt about the case of the prosecution case. The prosecution has not established his case satisfactorily. P.Ws.1 and 2 was not speaking truth. Their evidence is liable to be rejected. (v) Further, there is a doubt alleged the occurrence took place on 19.07.1998. But the complaint reported on 20.07.1998 at 23.00 hours and the First Information Report sent to the Court only on 21.07.2008 at 04.10 p.m. There is a delay in filing the complaint which was delayed in despatching to the Court also. The delay was not explained by the prosecution. So, the delay is fatal in the case of prosecution. (vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this case was not committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2006-1 L.W.(Crl.)Page 413 Athimula Gounder and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengee Taluk, Villupuram District. (vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this case was not committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2006-1 L.W.(Crl.)Page 413 Athimula Gounder and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengee Taluk, Villupuram District. In that case, the learned Judge of High Court held as follows: "Unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate – Section 193 imposes an interdict on all Courts of Session against taking cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge has taken cognizance without being committed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the entire procedure is vitiated." (vii) In the above case also, the learned Judge relied on the Judgment of this Court in Mani @ Palanisami Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station reported in 2001(2) Law Weekly (Criminal) 755. and in N. Palanisamy and others Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Wing, Kajamalai, Trichy reported in 2003(2) Law weekly (Criminal) 914 of this Court and came to a conclusion that the conviction by trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly set aside. 6. The accused was not committed by the Judicial Magistrate to the Sessions Court. This itself would go to the root of the case and the light of the above decisions, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.