Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2005 Date of Decision: 19.1.2011. Rajbir ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.A. Sheroan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Rajbir-complainant has filed this revision against the judgment dated January 3rd, 2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, whereby, respondents were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 437 dated November 6th, 1998 under Sections 379, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. 2. The story of the prosecution is as under:- 3. Rajbir, his father Chailu Ram, uncle Prabhu Ram and cousin Bir Singh purchased land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Manheru from Dharampal, Prem Singh and Dharambir sons of Amar Singh-respondents No.4 to 6. On October 2nd, 1998 Rajbir noticed that respondents were cutting kikkar trees standing on the land which they had purchased from them. The kikkar trees were 50 in number and the value thereof was to the tune of Rs.5000/-. Investigator reached the spot and got recovered kikkar trees lying on the road side. Civil litigation was pending between the parties. 4. Learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused, inter- alia, on the grounds (i) that in the civil suit filed by the complainant, Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2005 2 Sub Judge First Class, Bhiwani by judgment dated June 10th, 1995 (Exhibit D-1) observed that possession over the suit land was that of the accused-respondents. By judgment dated March 16th, 1998 (Exhibit D-2), the same was upheld by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani; (ii) that there was delay of 1 month and 3 days in lodging FIR because occurrence took place on October 2nd, 1998 and the FIR was recorded on November 6th, 1998 after consultation and confabulation. 5. It is not in dispute that by judgments (Exhibit D-1 and D-2) Civil Courts held that respondents were in possession of the suit land. Since the suit land was in possession of the respondents so, the question of taking away kikkar trees standing over it does not arise. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he planted kikkar trees. It is also not the case of the prosecution that kikkar trees were taken away by the respondents rather, the Investigator had taken kikkar trees in possession from the spot vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PW-1/C). 6. In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, the trial Judge correctly appraised the evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents. Thus, no interference is called for. 7. Dismissed. 19.1.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE