Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 788 of 2010. Dated of Decision: August 11, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Joginder Pal. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : Heard and gone through the record. 2. Leave to appeal is sought in this case. In short, the facts can be stated thus. One Hari Krishan Sharma general power of attorney of Shri C.K. Baljee, owner of building ‘Mountain Home’ Bharari at Shimla filed a complaint in Police Station Sadar Shimla that he had employed the respondent as a gardener and provided an accommodation on one of the out-houses located beside the aforesaid building. The original owner Shri C.K. Baljee used to visit Shimla once or twice a year and the complainant aforesaid was a care taker of his property. - 2 - 3. It is alleged that on 27th February, 2009 the accused took undue advantage of the absence of the owner of the property and shifted from the out-house to the main building and occupied a room therein without the consent and knowledge of the original owner. On the basis of this complaint a case was registered under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Police recorded the statements of witnesses and finally on the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the learned trial Court. The respondent was prosecuted, tried and acquitted of the said offence. 5. State felt aggrieved by his acquittal and filed the instant appeal. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was earlier allotted the out- house which was beside the main building except the sole testimony of the complaint. The investigating officer has also not enquired about the factual position as to the allotment of the out-house to the respondent nor examined any witnesses of the vicinity despite its availability and even the electricity bills etc. have also not been procured and produced to ascertain the truthfulness of the case of the complainant. The evidence - 3 - also lacks material particulars about the basic elements of intention of committing an offence intimidating, insulting or to annoy the right holder of the property aforesaid. Therefore, the evidence produced does not meet the warp and woof of the prosecution case. The learned trial court has duly appreciated and taken note of the aforesaid facts in its detailed judgment. I do not find infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such the leave to appeal not allowed hence dismissed. August 11, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (VT) Judge.