IN TIE HIGH COURT OF JUDIOATURE AT BILASPUR . AT CHATTISGARH 2 .3 ? / a SWI’Q gemh M CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 ‘ /M a ‘ mani. N0222£ OF 2006' APPLICATION UNDER smxoN 37s 3 or Tim M CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR O or LEAVE AND AmMOLANDUM _ or APPEAL 111mm snc'noN {378 1 : or Tm cODE or CRIMINAL DROCEDURE, 1973. / APPLICANT State of Chhaftisgarh Through: District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Uttra Kumar, S/o Faguram Netam, Aged V about 325mm. Faguram, S/o> ‘- Rupo Netam, Aged about %£j 54,? years. ”W Both are R/o Village — Saliha, RS. Bilaigarh, Distt . Raipur, (CG) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakgr Acqumm Appeal No. 237 of 2010, h APPLICANT 5mm af Chha‘rtisgar Versus U‘Hm Kumar :31 anofher. NON-APPLICANTS Shri Praveen Das, Dy. &.A. far the Side/appellanf.‘ Shri Shailendr‘a Shukla, counsei for The non-appiicam‘s. CRIMINASL APPEAL UNDER 5ECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROgEDURE JUDGMENT (08.07. 2010) Present appeal arises cut of The impugned judgmen‘l and order dated 253.2006 passed by Judicial Magistra‘ie/Fir‘sl Class, Baloda Bazar, Dis‘rr‘icl' Raipur' in Criminal Case No. 790/2002 acqui‘ll‘ing The respan'den’rs/accused of lhe alleged offence punishable under Section 26 (F) of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.12091 The respandents/accused encroached 3‘2 acres of forest land situated at Forest Compartment No. Z95 at Bilaigarh and damaged 1,910 plants of teak valued at Rs.5(),OOO/-. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support 3' of its case. Statements of the accused/respondents were also ‘l recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; in which they denied the charge levelled against them and; pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. That: apart, witnesses namely Vijoy Singh (DW-l) d: Rathu Lai.(DW.-E , l l l l 2) have also been'ex’ammed by *he defence in support sf h‘s CGse. 4. By the impugned judgmgnt The coum‘ below has cmquitted the responden’rs of The offence punishable under Section 26 (F) of the Indian Foree? ACT, Hence this appeal. 5; Counse! far The applicant/State submits Thar on accaunf af The ac? of 'rhe respondents, State Government has suffered a heavy financial loss and on the date of incident Le, 1.7.2001 the value of those teak plants was of Rs.50,000/— and by now those plants would have developed into healthy teak trees and State Government would have earned lacs of rupees. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by counsel for the respondents that the land in question was in possession of the respondents since 1980 and they were enjoying the possession of the same. He submits that in the Survey Record, name of the respondents have been recorded as being in possession of the land. He further submits that in an appeal against acquittal there is hardly any scope for higher Court, and therefore, the appeal may be I dismissed, 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Ramji Dubey, Deputy Ranger (PW-1) has admitted thel fact that no document has been produced by the authorities l showing that the teak plants were planted by the Forest? Department. On the contrary statements of the witnesses i shows that the land in question was in possession of the i l respondents since 19$0 and they were enjoying the possession l l i of fhe same. A}! these aspects have been duiy considered by The court belew white passing fhe impugned gudg'men‘r of acquifml. 9. Affer' hearing counsel for the parties, and going fhr‘ough The evidence avgiiabie an reéord and being very much canscious ef‘ The existing iegol posi‘rion the? in a case ageing? acquiiml if two views are possible on the basis 9f the evidenee led by the prosecutian and the trial Cour-t taking (me view favaumbie to the accused, reversion 9f the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other- possible View into consideration, is not permissible in low, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned ocquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable 26 (F) of the Indian Forest Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10._ For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present case and the some is dismissed accordingly. nker iw‘akef yrit" Jué‘ée “2% we K, A” Sai. ) o ”v i