The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Rami W/O Beera Naik on 14 July, 2008

witnesses and on completion of the investigation filed

the charge sheet against the respondent.

During the trial, the prosecution eiemined ?.Ws.i_

to 6 and in their evidence got narkedVEfis.§§ to 13;_k

The statement of the accused_ was reoordeer*nnder
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the'défe5¢e of total

denial and he has not led eny=evieence in his defence.

The Trial Court_onVepnrecietion of the material
on record, aoqeitted the aceusefi and aggrieved by the

acquittal, the State has sreferred this appeal.

3.i_ I-hafie heard the learned Government Pleader

and the learned connselafor the respondent.

j44::'The eoint that arises for my consideration

Wis1l*

2 Vflfihether the Judgment and Order of
ecqfiittal of the respondent in respect of
flu ,the"eharges leveled under the provisions of
V *,the Karnataka Forest Act etc. is illegal and

perverse? '¢

K.



S. The learned Government Pleader contended that
there is sufficient material on record to the

encroachment of the forest land and that the act Of

encroachment is recurring offence and~«thereferef'heu»

submits that the Trial Court gerreel in tgraneifig, the =

acquittal.

6. The yerusafl. of  by the
prosecution reveals vthet.h§;$5rlTlto;_3 who are the
attesting witnesses Vforl thee gahgza; have turned
hostile to the e§§se§u:i§fi.£fffie;efore, the testimony
of these eitnesses is of he heln to the prosecution.
The other yitnessee are Range Forest Officer [P.W.41,
the pores; and the Forester [P.W.6].

The complaint Rae for the encroachement of 21 guntas

'of the Eereat land by the accused and growing banana,

i¢gcgnu::;§eés,f¢tc. and putting up the construction of

the huildine in the encroached portion. The perusal

l,_r of the~e§idence reveals that the encroachment is said

"' 'to nhave been done by' the accused about 25-30 years

'"erior to the registration of the complaint. The

".§roperty extract produced reveals that the land is

g;ann§: in possession of the Forest Department. The

K



copy of the notification placed at E'.x.P'? reveals the
Sy. No.92 as the forest land. The said notification
was issued under the provisions of the Indie'n"»r£'ore$t

Act 18'?8. The said notification issue~d...'p&un_tié;'::V"the

earlier Act continues to be valid under._ the i'pries3ent--._

Act. But, unfortunately, the ;department;'has._nVo'tV"ta.ken_ 

any action against the respciniindenti 
years and the delay has  Vprope'iflV§nb4'VeXplained.
The inordinate delayp   'the c'ofiznpl.ain§t leads to
a doubt with regard to of ownership in

respect of the_"'encroach~etd  State can have

recours;e"i'torA...t.he '7px:'o§i.s'ions_"v'of Section 64(A} of the
Karnatakiap i.For'eet.'if.}5~;ct'°*-._and seek summary eviction.

Though there isV'v;nat--ver'i'al regarding encroachment, but

.~-the  V__area""«encroached has to be found out by

Videniarcetioni'«vcciiief the boundary through the proper

  View of the remedy available to the

gespondenpt thunder Section 64(A) of the Act, the

fld.eparr_tment is at liberty to initiate the action by

 the eviction of the respondent summarily and

:'u"to"iVtake the possession. In the circumstances and in

it iziew of insufficient material on record, I do not find

any ground to warrant the interference. In the





6

circumstances, I answer the point in the negative andfil

prsceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is diamissed.

Ksm*