1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 509 of 2008. Date of Decision:12.9.2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Budhi Ram. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : None. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J(oral). Cr.M.P.(M) No.917 of 2008. The State has appealed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 9-2 of 2008/2004 dated 15-5-2008 under Section 336 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal of the State is barred by 24 days. The reasons for delay are given in paras 2 to 4 of the application which are supported by the affidavit of Deputy Secretary (Home). Prima facie, there is “sufficient cause” to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, it is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 914 of 2008. Heard and gone through the impugned judgment. The respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 336 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the complainant had Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 constructed a retaining wall in front of his house “Mehta Niwas” wherein eight families including his tenants had been residing and the water of this building passes through the drainage constructed by the respondent in the year 1993 on old khasra number 252. Whatever water passes through the drainage fell on the land where the complainant had constructed the retaining wall which developed cracks because of the continuous seepage. The complainant requested the respondent to repair the drainage many a times but it turned deaf ears and the respondent failed to take care of the property of the complainant which caused immense damage. On 26-7- 2003, two retaining walls in front of his house collapsed and caused damage to his property and the inhabitants of the building as also the adjacent building of Shri Rajesh Narwal. Respondent faced the trial and he was acquitted on the ground that the drainage was constructed by the respondent on his own land which passed through the land of the complainant. It was held that the retaining wall had not collapsed due to the direct act or omission on the part of the respondent. Further, according to the map Exhibit PW7/A prepared by the Junior Engineer (PW7) during the investigation of the case, the retaining wall had collapsed due to heavy rains during the monsoon season. Thus two views were deducible from the evidence on record and the benefit of was given to the accused which supported him. On the perusal of the judgment I do not find any error in the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed. As a result of the above, the present appeal has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. September 12, 2008. (bm)