Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/550/1999 3/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 550 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
MAFATBHAI
VITTHALBHAI PATEL & 3 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MINI NAIR, APP for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR GAURAV CHUDASMA for MR
YATIN SONI for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR CL SONI for Opponent(s) : 3
- 4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 11/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellant – State of Gujarat has filed this Appeal under Section
378(1)(3) of Cr. P.C. against the Judgment and order of acquittal
dated 31.12.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Mandvi, in Criminal Case No. 337 of 1987, whereby the respondents
accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
The
brief facts of the prosecution case are that when complainant
Nagarbhai Diveliyabhai Vasava, Social Worker, was present in his
office at that time he received information that in Mandvi
Shivshakti Sow Mill, the Teak Wood are unloaded from the Truck
bearing No.GTK 917 and Shri M.V.Patel, Forest Officer of Mandvi
South Forest Range and Shri Vinubhai Manabhai Chaudhari, Forester
are illegally illegally cutting the Teak Wood without pass or
permit. On receiving such information Nagarbhai gave information on
telephone to Mandvi Police Station. Therefore, on receipt of said
information, PSI C.N. Parghi, along with staff and the complainant,
went to Shivshakti Sow Mill at 5.30 P.M., where they found that work
of cutting of Teak wood was going on in presence of accused Nos.1 &
2, without any pass or permit. They seized the goods from the
accused after drawing the panchnama. Therefore, complaint for the
offences under Sections 379, 114 of I.P. Code read with Section
26(F) of Indian Forest Act has been filed against the accused
respondents.
Thereafter,
the trial was proceeded against the respondent accused in the
Court of learned Magistrate. To prove the case against the
respondents accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses
and also produced documentary evidence. And at the end of trial,
after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate has acquitted
the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them,
vide judgment under challenge.
Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order
passed by the learned Magistrate, the appellant State has filed
present Appeal.
Learned
APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the
Judgment and order of trial Court is against the provisions of law.
The trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence
led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself
it is clearly established that the prosecution has proved the whole
ingredients of offence against the respondents. The learned APP has
contended that, being the Forest Officer, it was the duty of accused
No.1 to look after the forest produce and instead of that he was
doing illegal activity and in his presence the work of illegally
cutting the teak wood was going on. Learned APP has also taken this
Court through the oral as well as documentary evidence.
I
have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence. I have also
considered the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor as
well as the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent
accused. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence it is
clearly established that the ingredients of Section 379 of I.P. Code
is not proved by the prosecution. Even learned APP is not in a
position to say that how the learned Magistrate has committed an
error in not believing the case of the prosecution.
I
have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial
Court and have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence
produced before me and also considered the submissions made by the
learned Advocates. The trial Court has found that there is not a
single iota of evidence to show that accused have committed the
alleged offence and the prosecution witnesses have also not deposed
anything against the accused. The trial Court has also found that
from the perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence the
prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 379 of
I.P. Code as also Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act. On going
through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the
papers placed before me, I am of the opinion that the trial Court
has not committed any error in not believing the case of the
prosecution. I find that the findings recorded by the trial Court
are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. The learned Judge
has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the case against the respondents
accused.
Thus,
in my opinion, looking to the evidence on record, from the evidence
itself it is it clearly established that the prosecution has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
At
the out-set it is required to be noted that the principles which
would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court
against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been
very succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
decisions. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an
order of acquittal are well settled. Thus, in case the appellate
Court agrees with the reasons and the findings given by the lower
Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
I
am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
Court below and hence find no reason to interfere with the same.
Hence, the Appeal is hereby dismissed.
In
view of above the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated
31.12.1998 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 337
of 1987 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stands
cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top