IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMPM No.225 of 2007 Decided on: May 18, 2007 State of H.P. ......Petitioner. VERSUS Sonam Chhotal and others ......Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Respondents were sent up for trial for allegedly committing offences of criminal trespass and mischief by entering upon the land of Smt. Indira Vidyarthi and uprooting some angle irons. The complainant reported that she was informed by someone that six persons, namely Jindu Ram, Trilochan Singh, Fateh Chand, Dehru Ram, Tara Devi and Parwati Devi, had uprooted the angle irons after entering upon her land. Police investigated the matter and instead of challaning the persons named in the complaint, Ex. PW- 3/B, except one of them, namely Jindu Ram, challaned some other persons, i.e. the present respondents. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined one eye-witness, namely PW-5 Thakur Das, who named only one of the respondents. The respondent named by him is Jindu. In addition to Jindu he named Trilochan Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... Singh whose name figures in the complaint of Indira Vidyarthi also. Since the respondents, but for one of them namely Jindu, are neither named in the complaint that was lodged by Indira Vidyarthi nor in the statement of PW-5 Thakur Das, the sole alleged eye-witness, I do not think the trial Court has committed any error in acquitting the respondents. Hence, leave to appeal is not granted. Application is dismissed. May 18, 2007(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.