( 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. 741 of 1997 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741 of 1997 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741 of 1997 Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishad, through its Overseer and Trees Officer, Shri M.M. Katekar,Adult, years, Occupation service, resident at Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. .. Appellant. (Original Complainant) versus. versus. versus. 1. Rajkumari Sanyukta Raje Jaisinharao Bhosle, residing at New Palace, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur 413216. 2. Rajkumari Sunita Raje Jaisinharao Bhosle, residing at New Palace, Akkalkot, District Solapur 413 216. 3. Shri G.N. Bagul, Manager residing at New Palace, Akkalkot, District Solapur 413 216. 4. Shri Shankar Nana Uttekar, Gardner, residing at Krege Bungalow,Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. ( 2 ) 5. The State of Maharashtra. Respondents (Original accused.) Mr C. R. Sonawane, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr M.S. Mohite, for Respondent No.1 to 4. Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 28TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 28TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 28TH APRIL,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ------------- ------------- ------------- 1. Heard arguments of learned Advocate, appearing for Mahabaleshwar Nagar Parishad, appellant, original complainant, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 (original accused persons) and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant, Mahabaleshwar Municipal Council against the judgment and order dated 12th September, 1997, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Wai camp at ( 3 ) Mahabaleshwar,whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (accused) were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (the Act for short). 3. According to the present appellant, original complainant on or about 2.11.1995 it was noticed that about 13 trees were cut and fallen down in the premises of some immovable property known as Kreg Bungalow situated at City survey No.19, Mahabaleshwar. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged and the matter was investigated. Panchnama was drawn and photographs were taken of the cut trees. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against all the four accused i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2, owners of Kreg Bungalow, accused No.3 Manager of the said Bungalow, property and accused no.4 gardener employed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 4. During the trial only three witnesses came to be examined.P.W.1 is the Trees Officer - complainant, P.W.2 is a Photographer who took ( 4 ) photographs of the cut trees and P.W.3 is the panch witness. It appears that the trial Magistrate was very much weighed with the substantive evidence of the photographer and also that of the panch witness and also Trial Magistrate took note of the factual position as to the contents of the panchnama and mainly not mentioning the name of the second panch in the panchnama. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment and order that the name of the second panch is blank in the panchnama and as such created a doubt whether there were two panch witnesses as per the case of the prosecution. During the arguments the said points were emphasized on behalf of the respondents, originally acquitted accused and it was further submitted that the trial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material led before him and had rightly acquitted the accused as there was failure on the part of the prosecution to establish that trees from the bungalow premises of Kreg Bungalow were cut on the relevant date,time and that too without obtaining permission under the Act. ( 5 ) 5. On going through the substantive evidence of the prosecution,carefully, which was led before the trial Magistrate and on going through the reasoning while acquitting the accused persons, in the opinion of this Court it must be said that considering the material available before the trial Magistrate, he has rightly appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused persons was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. In view of the above, after going through the rival submissions which are advanced before this Court and considering the effect of the panchnama and mainly the substantive evidence of P.W.2 Photographer, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed way back on 12.9.1997 and there is nothing to alter the said order of acquittal. 7. In the result, present appeal is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. The ( 6 ) impugned judgment and order dated 12th September, 1997 shall sustain. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)