[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 205/2008 NAGAR NIGAM, KOTA Vs. SMT. NAZMA Date: 25.07.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Mohd. Anees for the complainant-appellant. **** The present criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1 (North), Kota in Criminal Case No. 79/2004, whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 170, 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. This leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant on the ground that Section 203(15) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act provides that “Where any person is prosecuted for an offence under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the burden of proving that he has not committed the offence shall be on him.” Thus, the onus lies on the accused to prove that the land in dispute belongs to the accused, but no proof has been placed by the accused to show the ownership of the land in dispute, on the other hand, the [2] appellant Nagar Nigam, Kota fully proved that the land belongs to Nagar Nigam, upon which the accused-respondent raised construction without seeking permission. It is further contended that the trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent, has not properly examined the provisions of Section 203 (15) of the Rajashthan Municipalities Act. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2007 passed by the trial Court, by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the aforesaid offences. The appellant Nagar Nigam, Kota utterly failed to prove encroachment over the land in dispute and further not able to place any notice which was issued to the accused-respondent for removing the encroachment. Neither inspection report (Ex.P2) which was submitted has been signed by the concerned officer nor any officer has been examined who has prepared the alleged inspection report nor any notice has been placed on record. Only sweeper and sanitary inspector have been examined, who failed to prove the offence under Section 203, 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act against the accused-respondent. Therefore, the accused-respondent has rightly been acquitted from the aforesaid offences by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 08.10.2007. [3] In view of these facts, this Court do not find any merit in the leave to appeal and the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1 (North), Kota requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, the criminal leave to appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/