Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the Judgment in C.C.No.47 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur. The accused have been charged under Section 381 of IPC for committing theft of 20 welding rods to the value of Rs. 10,000/- from their work spot. 2. After taking cognizance of the case, the learned trial Judge had summoned the accused for their appearance and on their appearance copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined. Exs P1 to P7 were exhibited and M.O.1 (series) welding rods were marked. 4. P.W.1 is an employee of Premier Mills who would depose that both the accused are his colleagues in the company. On 22. 1998, the Administrative Manager of the Company Sathiamoorthy had informed that senior manager Anandapadmanabhan had received a phone call from Bangalore informing that two persons by name Kumaresan and Kannan had sold 20 welding rods in their shop at Bangalore and the informant is the supplier of rods to Premier Mills and that the information conveyed through Anandapadmanabhan over phone was that 20 welding rods attempted to be sold by the said Kumaresan and Kannan were supplied by the informants shop owner to premier mill and as per instruction of the senior manager, he along with Govindaraj, the Security guard went to the Company at Bangalore which used to supply the welding rods to premier mills and on their arrival at Bangalore, he could see Vairavan A1 in the said shop and he has identified Vairavan and on enquiry Vairavan revealed that the other person who accompanied him to Bangalore is a foreman. Immediately, he took the accused to Bagalur Police Station in order to prefer a complaint. Since the Station House Officer was not there, the constable who was present there refused to register the complaint. Hence he had returned to the company with the accused and that the senior manager, Sathiamoorthy had conducted an enquiry. Immediately, he took the accused to Bagalur Police Station in order to prefer a complaint. Since the Station House Officer was not there, the constable who was present there refused to register the complaint. Hence he had returned to the company with the accused and that the senior manager, Sathiamoorthy had conducted an enquiry. A1 took apology and gave an undertaking that such incident will not recur in future and that he had pleaded for mercy and also informed that he is prepared to resign his job and when he was enquired the whereabouts of the co-accused Kannan, he said that Kannan has gone to his native place and he has also tendered apology in writing with his resignation letter. Ex P1 is the tender of apology letter submitted by A1.Three days later, co-accused Kannan was also brought from his native place to the company and he has also tendered letter of apology which is Ex P2 and along with those letters, he and Sathiamoorthy went to the police station and preferred a complaint which was prepared by Anandapadmanabhan which is Ex P3. M.O.1 series are the welding rods. 4a. P.W.2 Sathiamoorthy would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.6 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station. According to him, on 13. 1998 at about 11.00 a.m., Anandapadmanabhan appeared in the police station and filed a written complaint which was received and registered under Bagalur Police Station Crime No.103/98 under Section 381 of IPC. Immediately, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P5 Observation mahazar and had drawn a rough sketch Ex P6 in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. 4b. P.W.3 Govindaraj, is the security guard of the premier mill who had accompanied P.W.1 to Bangalore to identify the accused. He would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is another witness in Ex P4 mahazar. 4c. P.W.5 is an employee at PTS Logistic Company, Bangalore. He would depose that some six years prior to his deposition before the Court, both the accused came to his shop and offered to sell a packet of welding rods. Immediately, he informed the General Manager and on suspicion, he caught hold of one of the accused and kept in the shop and immediately informed the premier mills about the person who try to sell the welding rod which were supplied to premier mills by them. Immediately, he informed the General Manager and on suspicion, he caught hold of one of the accused and kept in the shop and immediately informed the premier mills about the person who try to sell the welding rod which were supplied to premier mills by them. He would further depose that three or four persons from premier mill came to their shop and after meeting the General Manager, they took the welding rods along with the accused A1. 4d. P.W.7 is an ex employee of the premier mills who according to the instructions of the manager of the premier mills went to the native place of A2 and brought A2 to premier mills. P.W.6 after completing the investigation had laid the final report against the accused. Ex P7 is the first information report. Ex P3 is the complaint preferred by Anandapadmanabhan. 5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would totally deny their complicity with the crime. 6. After going through the evidence before him, both the oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused A1 and A2 was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted both the accused from the charges levelled against them. Hence P.W.2 Sathiamoorthy has preferred this revision. 7. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the Judgment of the trial Court is perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court? 8. Heard Mr. V.Karthik, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the StateR1 and Mr.K.Selvarangan, learned counsel appearing for R2 and R3 and considered their respective submissions. 9. The Point: The learned trial Judge had acquitted the accused on the following grounds. 1) Inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. 2) The person who preferred the complaint viz., Anandapadmanabhan was not examined in this case. 3) The consignment particulars regarding the M.O.1 welding rods were not furnished and 4) non examination of security guard of the premier mills. 10. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 22. 1998. Mr.Anandapadmanabhan, the then Senior Manager of the Premier Mill had received a phone call from Bangalore from P.W.5 informing that about 20 welding rods which were supplied byP.W.5s shop to premier mills were offered by the accused for sale. 10. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 22. 1998. Mr.Anandapadmanabhan, the then Senior Manager of the Premier Mill had received a phone call from Bangalore from P.W.5 informing that about 20 welding rods which were supplied byP.W.5s shop to premier mills were offered by the accused for sale. Immediately P.W.1 and P.W.2 were sent by Anandapadmanabhan to Banglore to appraise the fact. P.W.1 is Vetrivel who is an employee of Premier Mills. The explanation given by him for the failure to prefer the complaint immediately with the police is that there was no Station House Officer at Bangalore Police Station to register the complaint on 22. 1998. P.W.1 says that he preferred the complaint Ex P3 prepared by the senior manager Anandapadmanabhan. But the said Anandapadmanabhan was not examined as a witness in this case. According to P.W.6, on 13. 1998, Anandapadmanabhan himself came to the police station and preferred Ex P3 complaint. But P.W.1 would depose in the chief examination itself that he and Sathiamoorthy (P.W.2) went to the police station and preferred Ex P3 complaint. This discrepancy goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution because Anandapadmanabhan is an important witness in this case who had received the information from P.W.5 and has preferred Ex P3 complaint with the police station. The explanation given by P.W.1 in the cross examination for the non-examination of Anandapadmanabhan is that he is no more in service with the premier mill. The explanation given by P.W.1 for the failure to prefer the complaint on 22. 1998 itself is that there was an enquiry conducted in connection with the disciplinary action taken against the accused in the mill. To show that there was disciplinary action taken against A1 and A2, the prosecution has not produced any files regarding the enquiry conducted against them. So the non examination of Anandapadmanabhan in preferring Ex P3 complaint soon after the occurrence is fatal to the case of the prosecution as rightly held by the learned trial Judge. 11. Further there is a correction in the date in Ex P3 complaint. On the top of the complaint the date mentioned is 3. 1998 which has been corrected as 13. 1998. The complaint has reached the Court only on 14. 1998. The accused have examined one Gunasekaran, the time keeper of the premier mill as D.W.1. 11. Further there is a correction in the date in Ex P3 complaint. On the top of the complaint the date mentioned is 3. 1998 which has been corrected as 13. 1998. The complaint has reached the Court only on 14. 1998. The accused have examined one Gunasekaran, the time keeper of the premier mill as D.W.1. He has deposed to the fact that both A1 and A2 have not turned up for duty on 22. 1998. He has also produced the attendance register maintained in the Premier mill pertaining to A1 as Ex.D.1 and A2 as Ex.D.2 to show that both A1 and A2 have availed their weekly holiday on 22. 1998. Under such circumstances, the presumption is that there is no possibility for the accused to commit the offence on 22. 1998. 12. Under such circumstances, I do not find any perverseness in the findings of the learned trial Judge to warrant interference from this Court. The point is answered accordingly. 13. In fine, the revision isdismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 12. 2005 in C.C.No.47 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Hosur.