JUDGMENT :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant had levelled a written complaint before the Inspector of Police, Mambalam Police Station, Chennai-17, stating that he and Mrs.Ambica had worked as employees under one Mukesh as Salesman and Sales girl at his wall-paper junction, for around 15 years. The monthly salary was Rs.3,500/- each, both demanded for an increase in their salary, the same was refused by the owner of the wall-paper junction and thereafter they left their jobs. The defacto complainant went to his erstwhile employer's place and requested to settle the arrears of amount due to him, he told him to come to his office after one week. Accordingly, the said Mukesh, Pradheep and four others entered into his office, No.54, Saravana Street, T.Nagar, at about 12 noon and used abusive language. Pradeep took out a knife and forcibly placed it on his throat and questioned him as to where the things that belong to the Wall Paper Junction are. The accused Pradeep pulled at Ambica's saree and forcibly collected the key of the office from her and opened the drawer and collected all the wallpapers etc., and threatened them with their lives. 2. After receipt of the said complaint, the respondent-Police had registered a case in Crime No.1583 of 2003 under Sections 448, 294(B), 354, 506 (ii) IPC against the two accused. The prosecution had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet and examined seven witnesses and marked two documents, viz., copy of the complaint and observation mahazar and no material object. The said case converted into C.C.No.3516 of 2004 and tried by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. 3. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is running a similar business in the name and style of "Wall City Shop" at No.54, Saravana Street, T.Nagar, Chennai, for the past 1 1/2 months and one Ambica is working as an Assistant at his shop. He deposed that earlier he and Ambica had worked at Wall-paper junction, Teynampet, for the past 15 years and his employer/owner, Mr.Mukesh had paid Rs.3,500/- as monthly salary. Both the employees had demanded a higher salary but the employer refused to increase their salary, therefore both tendered their resignation letters on 17.11.2003 and requested him to settle their accounts. He deposed that earlier he and Ambica had worked at Wall-paper junction, Teynampet, for the past 15 years and his employer/owner, Mr.Mukesh had paid Rs.3,500/- as monthly salary. Both the employees had demanded a higher salary but the employer refused to increase their salary, therefore both tendered their resignation letters on 17.11.2003 and requested him to settle their accounts. P.W.1 further stated that employer Mukesh asked them to come on Friday and on the said date i.e., 28.11.2003, at about 12 noon Mukesh (A1), Pradeep (A2) and four others entered into his office and used abusive language against him and Ambica. A-2 Pradeep placed the knife on his neck and asked him as to where he kept the things taken from the Wall Paper Junction and he had replied that he did not collect anything. A-2 pulled the saree off Ambica and forcibly collected the key and opened the drawer and collected all the things that were kept in the drawer. P.W.1 further stated that he had consulted his lawyer and lodged the complaint. 4. P.W.2-Ambica had adduced evidence that she is working under P.W.1 as an Assistant. She deposed that she and P.W.1 had worked at Wall Paper Junction at Teynampet for the past 15 years and that both had demanded an increase of salary from their original salary of Rs.3,500/- but their employer refused to give any increase. Consequently, on 17.11.2003 both employees went to the employer's office and tendered their resignation with a request to settle their account. A-1 asked them to come after a week. P.W.2 further stated that on 28.11.2003 at about 12 noon, A-1 and A-2 had entered into the defacto complainant's shop bearing door No.54, Saravana Street and used abusive language and misbehaved with them. A-2 took a knife and placed it on the throat of P.W.1 and threatened his life. A-2 pulled her saree and forcibly collected the room key from her and then both of them left the occurrence place. 5. P.W.3, Jagadeesh had adduced evidence that he has let out the shop to P.W.1 and at the occurrence time as he heard a noise, he rushed to the occurrence place, wherein he had seen that two persons were misbehaving with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and that he had seen A-2 place a knife at P.W.1's neck. 5. P.W.3, Jagadeesh had adduced evidence that he has let out the shop to P.W.1 and at the occurrence time as he heard a noise, he rushed to the occurrence place, wherein he had seen that two persons were misbehaving with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and that he had seen A-2 place a knife at P.W.1's neck. The rest of the evidence of P.W.3 was on similar lines to that of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 6. P.W.4, Kali deposed that when he was proceeding on the Saravana Street, he had seen the respondent-police conducting an enquiry at the occurrence place and the Inspector of Police asked him to give evidence regarding this occurrence. 7. P.W.5, the Inspector of Police Stated that on 23.12.2003, at around 8 p.m., P.W.1 lodged a complaint before him and the same has been registered in Crime No.1583 of 2003 for the offence under Section 448, 294(b), 354 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Prohibition Harassment of Women Act . 8. After recording the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, the trial Court posted the case for cross examination of P.W.2, but the prosecution had not produced the witnesses on the hearing dates, viz., 21.03.2005, 11.04.2005, 25.04.2005, 16.05.2005, 13.06.2005 and 27.06.2005. Even then the prosecution had not produced the co-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, therefore the criminal case is dismissed since the prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt. 9. Against the dismissal of the said case, P.W.1 has filed the above revision. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 had adduced evidence which are cogent and corroborative with each other. After recording the chief examination of witnesses, the defence side had not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses even giving sufficient time. Thereafter, the trial Court had issued summons on 25.04.2005 and 13.06.2005 to the prosecution witnesses, but the respondent-Police failed to serve summons on P.W.1 and P.W.2 even though they are very much available at the occurrence place. The respondent-police made an endorsement on the summons stating that the witnesses are out of station. The learned competent counsel further argued that the respondent-police is a dutiful officer to prove the prosecution case against the accused for punishing them. Further, the trial Court had not given sufficient opportunities to the defacto complainant in order to prove the prosecution case. The respondent-police made an endorsement on the summons stating that the witnesses are out of station. The learned competent counsel further argued that the respondent-police is a dutiful officer to prove the prosecution case against the accused for punishing them. Further, the trial Court had not given sufficient opportunities to the defacto complainant in order to prove the prosecution case. The accused had committed the offence during day light by way of pulling the saree of P.W.2 and molesting her. A-2 had placed his knife on the neck of P.W.1 and threatened his life. The same was witnessed by P.W.2 and P.W.3 who had adduced evidence and disclosed the occurrence. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had worked under A-1 for the past 15 years, there was difference of opinion regarding an increase of salary, hence, the employer threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 at their place with dire consequences. As such, there is a prima facie case on the side of the prosecution, but the accused escaped from the punishment due to lack of services of the respondent-police. Even then the prosecution case had been proved beyond doubt through P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 witnesses, but the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused instead of punishing them. 11. The learned counsel for the State contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not available at their address for serving summons on them. The respondent-Police took adequate efforts to produce their witnesses before the trial Court, but the four witnesses have not co-operated with the respondent-Police due to non-cooperation of the witnesses, the respondent-Police became helpless in order to prove the prosecution case, hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court for an opportunity by way of remanding the case to the trial Court for re-trial. If this Court remands the prosecution case for re-trial, the accused will not be prejudiced. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the trial Court judgment, this Court does not find any shortcomings for acquitting the accused. This Court's further view that the prosecution had not produced any material evidence especially the knife which had been used by the second accused and the draw key which had been collected from P.W.2 by force. Further, the complaint had been lodged at 8 p.m., on 23.12.2003 but the occurrence took place at 12 noon. This Court's further view that the prosecution had not produced any material evidence especially the knife which had been used by the second accused and the draw key which had been collected from P.W.2 by force. Further, the complaint had been lodged at 8 p.m., on 23.12.2003 but the occurrence took place at 12 noon. As such, there was a delay for lodging a complaint on the side of P.W.1. Since the nature of allegation made by the defacto complainant against the accused which is of serious nature and which happened during day light at the premises of P.W.1. Therefore, there is a lacuna on the prosecution side and also the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case against the accused. The first principle of law is that countless criminals may be adept at escaping the dragnet of justice, but it would be a travesty of fate if an innocent victim should fall as prey. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial Court's judgment. 13. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in C.C.No.3516 of 2004, on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, dated 28.06.2005 is confirmed. Accordingly ordered.