1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJ. vs. HANUMAN PAREEK AND ANR. SB Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 2007 under Section 378 (i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated August 6, 2005 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 879 of 2001 by which the accused respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 447 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. Date of Order : May 22, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. R.K.Daga, for the accused respondents. BY THE COURT : The State of Rajasthan filed Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated August 6, 2005 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 879 of 2001 by which the accused respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 447 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt and this court vide order dated April 26, 2007 allowed the application and the leave to appeal was ordered to be treated as 2 appeal. Accused respondents were directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial ) of this court on May 18, 2007 and furnish their personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with one surety of the like amount to his satisfaction to appear before this court as and when they are called upon to do so. Hence this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 20, 2000, complainant Nirbhaya Singh submitted a written report before the Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur to the effect that in 1987 the Collector Jaipur appointed him receiver over the land on which accused respondent started unauthorirised construction when he came at 4.00 p.m. at Khetri House. Upon this report FIR No. 66 of 2000 for offence under section 447 IPC was registered. After investigation and preparing Naksa Moka, the police filed challan before the concerned court. The copy of the challan was supplied to the accused respondents and the accused respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents. In defence the accused respondents produced one witness. The statement of accused 3 under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the trial court vide its judgment dated August 6, 2005 acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 447 IPC. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against them. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The trial court while considering the documents found that the accused respondents 4 were having possession of 440 sq. ft. land which was gifted by erstwhile Maharaja of Jaipur and in relation to it the High Court also given judgment in their favour and it was stated that in the SLP the Supreme Court directed for filing appeal before the Division Bench and till date no such appeal was filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The trial court by a detailed judgment found that the accused respondents have not made any unauthorised construction over the land of the receiver and they were found to have their own houses on the land allotted by the erstwhile Maharaja of the Jaipur State. A dispute relating to said land was also raised and the High Court also gave judgment in their favour. SLP filed against the said jdugment was also rejected and it was directed to file appeal before the Division Bench. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out whether any such appeal was filed before the Division Bench or not. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and the prosecution has not been able to prove case against the accused 5 respondent beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 447 IPC. The trial court rightly passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused respondents. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and the appeal stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/