IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO.2030 OF 2001 State of Uttarakhand ……… Appellant Versus Trilok Singh Arya ……… Respondent Dated: September 18, 2010 Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/appellant Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No.74 of 2000, State v. Trilok Singh and others, whereby the learned C.J.M. acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against them. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that Forest Department lodged a report against the respondent Trilok Singh and his sons Rakesh Singh and Dinesh Singh alleging that the respondent and his sons had constructed a house measuring 11x 6 meter in front of Madmaheswar Mandir. Later on they encroached extra land of reserve forest measuring 2 meter and increased the measurement of their house by 13 x 6 meter. 4. The charge was framed against the respondent and co-accused which was read over and explained to them, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Nathi Singh and PW2 Rajendra Prasad. 6. Thereafter the statements of the respondent and others were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form, who denied the allegations made against them. In reply, they denied from any type of encroachment and has stated that the construction was made by their ancestors. They also filed a copy of the order passed by C.J.M., Chamoli under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 by which respondent Trilok Singh was acquitted. 7. After appreciating the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned C.J.M., Rudraprayag, vide his judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 acquitted the respondents. Against the said judgment and order, the State has preferred the present appeal. 8. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that the trial court has acquitted the respondent Trilok Singh and his sons on the ground that for the same offence the respondent Trilok Singh was also challaned in the year 1996 and he was acquitted by C.J.M., Chamoli and now he cannot be tried again for the same offence. I am in full agreement with the findings of the trial court due to following reasons:- a) That in the cross-examination PW1 Nathi Singh has stated that in the year 1996 the respondent Trilok 2 Singh was challaned for the same land in dispute. PW1 Nathi Singh was posted in that area and he had not seen the respondent while doing expansion of land. The case for the same land was before C.J.M. Chamoli in which the respondent Trilok Singh was acquitted. b) In cross-examination, PW2 Rajendra Prasad has also stated that they have got no right either to challan or to file any complaint under Wild Life Protection Act. He admitted that for the same land in dispute the respondent Trilok Singh was challaned in the year 1996 and in which he was acquitted by the order of C.J.M., Chamoli. PW2 Rajendra Prasad was posted in the said area in 1996 and at that time the respondent Trilok Singh and his sons were having possession over the said land in dispute. c) In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent Trilok Singh has stated that he was having possession over the disputed land by the time of their ancestors. He has also filed a copy of the order passed by C.J.M., Chamoli in case no.556/1997, under Section 26 of Forest Act in which he was acquitted by the court. 9. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that for the same disputed land, respondent Trilok Singh was also challaned in the year 1996 and in the same he was acquitted by C.J.M., Chamoli. It is settled law that a person once convicted or acquitted by the court concerned in an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence. Thus, in the present case when the respondent Trilok Singh has already been acquitted for 3 the offence u/s 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 by C.J.M., Chamoli, then as per law, he cannot be tried again for the same offence. Thus, I am of the view that the trial court is correct and justified in acquitting the respondent under the aforesaid section and I also concur the view taken by the trial court. 10. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the State lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No.74 of 2000, needs no interference by this Court and is hereby made affirmed. 11. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.9.2010 RG 4