IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.211 of 2006 DATE:24.01.2011 Between: State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. …… Appellant And Vanka Anantharamireddy and 3 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.211 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondents 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 by judgment dated 21.09.2004 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.113/2002 for offences under Section 447 and 427 I.P.C reversing convictions and sentences passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Khammam by judgment dated 20.09.2004 in C.C. No.384 of 1999. The Magistrate sentenced A-1 to A-4 to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each for offence under Section 427 I.P.C and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. 2) As per the prosecution case, A-1 to A-4 trespassed into Ac.3.21 guntas of land in S.No.9 of Gandhasiri village on 13.08.1999 at 7.00 hours and destroyed chilli saplings due to disputes between the accused and P.W-1 who is owner of the said land. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. 3) P.W-2 is son of P.W-1 who is owner of the disputed land. P.W-3 is stated to be one of the coolies working in the land on that day. Though P.W-4 also is claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, he did not support the prosecution case. P.W-4 is stated to be the source of information for P.W-2. The lower appellate Court disbelieved evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 on the ground that for ploughing the land, plough is used and not guntuka. According to the lower appellate Court, Guntuka is used for removing the weeds. P.W-5 is one of the mediators for observation of the scene. P.Ws 6 and 7 are police officers. 4) Admittedly there are civil disputes between the parties since several years prior to the date of offence, with regard to the boundary between their lands including the disputed land. There was an interim injunction order in I.A. No.218 of 2000 in O.S. No.77 of 2000, against which C.M.A. No.22 of 2000 was filed in the civil appellate Court. The civil disputes in Court are from the year 2000 and not in the year 1999 when the offence is stated to have taken place. Both the parties filed pahanis and R.O.R pass books and title deeds in their respective favour in support of their respective civil claims. In the light of admitted civil disputes between the parties since several years prior to the date of offence which bonafide dispute resulted in filing of civil suit and appeal in civil Courts, it cannot be said that the prosecution has made out the offence of criminal trespass in this case. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to reverse finding of acquittal arrived at by the lower appellate Court. 5) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 24, 2011 ksh