IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2008 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Bathala Harinath @ Hari .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.112 of 2003 on the ﬁle of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pileru, dated 22-02-2007, by which the accused therein was acquitted of the charges under Sections 447 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pileru, ﬁled the charge sheet in Crime No.130 of 2002, alleging that Punganur Seethamma was granted a house site patta for plot No.21 in Sy.No.539 situated at RTC Nallagutta in 1975, which was purchased from Seethamma by one B. Ramalakshmamma, who is in possession since then. The building plan was approved by Pileru Gram Panchayat in the name of Seethamma and Ramalakshmamma constructed a small house partly in the said plot and left it incomplete due to ﬁnancial crisis. The accused was alleged to have stealthily occupied the house and ﬁnished the house. On the petition of Ramalakshmamma, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Pileru, enquired through the Additional Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor, who inspected the plot and submitted their report. The accused produced house site Patta No.VHS No.441/97 and an order of injunction granted in O.S.No.76 of 2002 on 10-05-2002, but the patta said to be for Ac.0.03 cents in Plot No.43 of Sy.No.539 was given for plot No.12 in Sy.No.118/1 for Ac.0.13 cents and was later cancelled. The Mandal Revenue Officer found the patta produced by the accused to be forged or fake and on the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pileru, registered the crime and investigated into the same. The accused was arrested during investigation and hence, the charge. On the court taking cognizance of the oﬀences and on the appearance of the accused, the accused was furnished with the copies of documents and he denied the oﬀences when he was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a charge under Sections 447 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against him. The Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 during trial, while Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked on behalf of the accused, who did not produce any other defence evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the factual background and the evidence produced and noting that the prosecution did not place any material to show that the accused forged the document. No documents were seized or produced before the Court by the prosecution to suggest any forgery and the allegedly forged document was not even sent to expert for examination. Mere claim of PW.1 that the accused forged the house site patta in his name was hence considered to be insuﬃcient. Insofar as the allegations of trespass are concerned, the trial Court found that no patta was granted in favour of PW.4 and that the purchase by PW.4 from Seethamma was against the inalienability of the land granted to Seethamma under a patta. The trial Court referred to the civil dispute pending between the parties apart from the absence of any evidence to probablise the possession of PW.4 and the investigating oﬃcer was also noted to be ignorant of the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer himself has the power to evict any person in unauthorized occupation of government land and hence, the trial Court considered the oﬀence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code also to have not been made out beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal of the accused in respect of both the oﬀences for that reason led the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor to prefer the present appeal contending that the necessary ingredients to constitute the oﬀences punishable under Section 447 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out by the prosecution and the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 ought to have been accepted. The judgment of acquittal was, therefore, requested to be reversed. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/appellant and Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 447 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code is susceptible for reversal in appeal? The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Pileru, as PW.1 claimed that the accused handed over a xerox copy of a house site patta with VHS No.441/97, which, on veriﬁcation, was found to be relating to grant of patta under the same number in Sy.No.118/1, which was later cancelled and the land was reserved for communal purpose. PW.1 claimed to have also compared the lay out to conclude that there was no plot No.43 in the lay out, which ended with plot No.42. However, either the original patta said to have been tampered with by the accused or the xerox copy of the patta said to have been delivered to PW.1 by the accused was not produced before the Court or proved through any evidence. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer did not explain the non-production of this vital document without which any allegation of forgery could not have been adjudicated and considered as proved. O.S.No.76 of 2002 between the accused and PW.4 concerning the land in dispute was admittedly pending before the competent civil Court and PW.1 admitted that the patta granted in the name of one person cannot be changed without cancellation of the earlier patta. Admittedly, there was no such change from the name of Seethamma to that of PW.4 in respect of this land. PW.1 does not even know whether the electricity service connection stood in the name of the accused and if the alienation by Seethamma in favour of PW.4 was not legal, it is not known whether PW.1 took any further action. PW.2, The Revenue Inspector, made similar claims, but he admitted that he does not know as to who was residing in Plot No.21 in Sy.No.539 prior to Ex.P.2-report by them and also does not know as to what happened subsequent to Ex.P.2. PW.2 also does not know whether there was revised sketch after grant of patta to Seethamma in 1975. Similarly, the Mandal Surveyor as PW.3 was also speaking about Ex.P.2 but he has no record to show whether any patta was granted in favour of PW.4. PW.4, who is the alleged victim due to the acts of the accused, herself referred to the pending civil case wherein the original agreement claimed to have been made in her favour, has been ﬁled. She also admitted that in O.S.No.76 of 2002 pending before the Civil Court in respect of the same land, an injunction was granted in favour of the accused. She further stated that the injunction orders in favour of the accused were much prior to the complaint to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer did not grant any patta in her favour so far. The evidence of PW.4, thus, shows the existence of bona ﬁde civil dispute between the parties. But for the presence of an ex facie prima facie case, the Civil Court would not have granted an injunction in favour of the accused. PW.5 had no personal knowledge about the title to the property or its possession except what apparently was informed to him by PW.4 or the accused. The investigating oﬃcer-PW.6 stated that he does not know anything about the revenue record in this case and even without verifying them, he concluded that the accused forged his house site patta and also trespassed into the land in dispute. It is thus obvious that the claims of the accused that a false case was foisted could not have been straight away dismissed by the trial Court. While the absence of original or copy of the patta said to have been forged or fabricated by the accused before the Court makes proof of an oﬀence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code not possible, the admitted existence of a bona ﬁde civil dispute between the parties in which the Civil Court had granted an interim injunction in favour of the accused against PW.4 makes any oﬀence of criminal trespass being proved not possible. The conclusions of the trial Court, therefore, do not appear to be so vitiated as to call for interference in this appeal and but for any strong grounds and convincing reasons, a judgment of acquittal is normally not interfered with and it should be so in this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-11-2011 Ksn