JUDGMENT
D.P. Sood, J.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated 26-11-1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Criminal case No. 307-1/85, whereby the trial court recorded the impugned order of acquittal in favour of the respondent.
2. Shortly stated, facts of the case are that on 18- 6-1985, the Junior Engineer/in charge of National Highway No.21, Pandoh Section, Chandigarh- Manali road noticed unauthorised construction alleged to have been raised by the accused and asked him to stop it, but of no avail. This fact was brought to the notice of the Assistant Engineer, Shri K.K.Malhotra, who too directed the accused to refrain himself from raising the construction, but the directions so issued were not obeyed. The above stated facts led to the collection of material by way of revenue papers and Tatima etc. and ultimately filing of the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act,1968 (shortly referred to as the ‘Act’).
3. Notice of accusation as envisaged under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was put up to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused pleaded that the construction in question had been raised since the time of his father.
4. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence, recorded the acquittal of the accused.
5. The only question to be determined by this Court is whether the impugned judgment recording the order of acquittal is legally justified ?
6. Suffice it to state that the, notice dated 9th August, 1979 purporting to have been issued to the father of the accused to remove the ‘Khokha’ from the Govt. land in between RD 217/510 to RD 217/ 630 pertains to this very ‘Khokha’. It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent has constructed additional ‘Khokha’ to the one existing already on the Govt. land since prior to the initiation of the instant proceedings which has been constructed in the year 1985, Rather the case is that the ‘Khokha’ in question had been constructed in the year 1985, more specifically to state on 4-12-1985 when the officials of the H.P.Public Works Department had visited the spot and allegedly found the accused to be committing the crime in question. The factum of the existance of the ‘Kokha,’ is then also supported by one Shri Dugla Ram (DW -1), according to whom, the respondent had been carrying on his business thereon for the last more than forty years. Nothing favourable could be extracted by the prosecution in the cross-examination of this witness. Thus, this witness is worthy of credit as has been held by the trial court. There being no other independent evidence and in view of the circumstances emerging from the record, the trial court was absolutely right in concluding that the prosecution has failed to establish and make out a case against the respondent. Accordingly, evidence has rightly been appreciated by the trial court. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.