( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 747 of 1997 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 747 of 1997 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 747 of 1997 Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishad, through its Overseer and Trees Officer, Shri M.M. Katekar,Adult, Aged 37 years, Occupation service, resident at Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. .. Appellant. (Original Complainant) versus. versus. versus. 1. Mrs Anita Rajendrakumar, adult, Proprietor of Grand Hotel, Mahabaleshwar, C.T.S.No.18, District Satara. 2. Mahadeo Baburao Kadam, adult, occupation Gardner, resident at Grand Hotel, Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. 3. The State of Maharashtra. Respondents (Original accused.) ( 2 ) Mr C. R. Sonawane, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr K. Y. Mandlik for Respondent No.1 Mr S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent No.2 Mr D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the State- Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 24TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 24TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 24TH APRIL,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ------------- ------------- ------------- 1. Heard arguments of learned Advocate appearing for Mahabaleshwar Nagar Parishad, appellant original complainant and also arguments of learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2- original accused persons and also heard learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant, Municipal Council against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 1997, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Wai camp at Mahabaleshwar,whereby respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (accused) were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the ( 3 ) Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Prevention of Trees, Act, 1975 in violation of Section 8 of the said Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that accused no.1 owns hotel premises namely, Hotel Grand at Mahabaleshwar. It was noticed on 29th October, 1995 that about 33 trees were cut and fallen down in the said Hotel premises. Accordingly,a complaint was lodged and matter was investigated. Panchnama was drawn. Photographs were taken. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Wai. 4. During the trial, three witnesses were examined. P.W.1 is the Trees Officer i.e. complainant. P.W.2 is the panch, a local reporter of a newspaper and P.W.3 is a Photographer. On perusal of the substantive evidence led before the trial Magistrate and on going through the reasoning given while acquitting accused persons, it appears that the Trial Magistrate has doubted as to whether the trees were cut within the premises of hotel ( 4 ) Grand and whether the photographs produced by P.W.3 were of the same premises. Reasoning given by the Trial Magistrate is that panchnama shows that name of the second panch was blank and as such in the absence of examining second panch witness case of the complainant as to cutting down of the trees in the premises of the accused become doubtful. It is further held by the Trial Magistrate that the substantive evidence of P.W.3 Photographer cannot be taken as against the accused when he had not produced any bill for taking photographs and he has not developed the negative and took the photographs. Apart from what was weighed with the Trial Magistrate was the factual position, as admitted by P.W.3 Photographer that he used to take snaps from various places for and on behalf of the complainant Municipal Council and he used to keep all such photographs with him till they were demanded by the complainant’s counsel. He used to give such individual packets to the Municipal Council. Also, what was weighed with the Trial Magistrate was the answer given by the Photographer that he had no knowledge as to ( 5 ) from which premises he had taken photographs which were produced in the said matter and that said photographs did not show any premises of the Hotel Grand. 5. After going through the said substantive evidence of P.W. Nos. 1 to 3, after hearing the rival submissions and considering the effect of the panchnama in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order in the present appeal and that there is nothing to alter the said order of acquittal so as to come to the conclusion as to establishment of guilt of the respondents - accused for the offence for which they are charged. 6. In the result, present appeal is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. The impugned judgment and order dated 10th April, 1997 shall sustain. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) ( 6 )