1N THE HIGH coum' 0? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 2' T' Q
DATED mss THE 9%! DAY 01+" F"
BEFORE~~ é u %
THE HOWBLE MR.JUsT1C;.'.«;
CRIMINAL A1==P;'*?v=:§L,'§G.::';:3*éI'20..Q'§'?}%J.'% "
BETWEEN: J . AT 'H
The State ofKamata:l{a 1)yA _ V AA
R.F.P., Banavasi. V
(By Sri Anm,_a:;, ;
Rama; 'S_i<§:) -- é ' V .
R/Q: " ...Resp-ondent
Advocate)
as at 1»
. ' appeal is filed under Section 378(1) 55 (C1)
(ELF. 'bythe State praying to grant leave to file: an appea}.
againét the judgment dated 18.10.2002 passed by II
Add1.J.MFC, Sirsi in C.C.No.4i96/2001, acquitting the
V. x respandenvaccused for the ofiences pi u/s.'24{g),(I1)(j) and
' "?3A(€i) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and 427 and 447 1.13.0.
This criminal appeal coming on £01" heaziug this day,
the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal chaflcngjng the
judgment and onicr of acquit£a1 of mspondcnt~«.in_&’1;c_$uficct of
chargcs for offences punishable under {‘¥:i)’,»:
anci 73(d) of The Kamataka Fo2fc§{b’Act, i. V
caiicd as the ‘Am and violation §i*R{:1¢A#42 of’v_’fI3h’c
Forest Rules, 1969 and Sécfion ‘anki of The
Karnataka Forest Oonscrvatioii Act, A ”
2. The facts rwc1cfLz:2a1::i_t’–fo1;._V*;nc this appeal are
cos: prosecution that on 17.8.1998, the
fgrégs; to 3 visited the resexved _3and
A ; bcarin_g’~S3r,«No_._80 of Una: Village and found that there was
H ‘- house by the respondent by encroaching
noon of land out of mvision survey No.80, which
” bclonvgcd to the forest department. In the circumstances, the
mahazar-«cx}:1ibit P. I was drawn and a case came to be
regjistcred and the F.I.FE.-«exhibit R2 was sent to the
Magsnatc. They also drew skctch of the scene of occtnrence
and secures}. the preperty extract–ex]:1ibit PA, 3.: ~~. c>f
gazettee netifica1:i.on–~exhibit P:5 and es¥;i111atioz1__~e§Vt.”A..1’£):e’:~f..
exhibit Re submitted a repon-exh;3g;:’_P.7 fee “the: ” ”
During trial, the prosecution
marked documents exhibits -1_ to efie
accused was Iecozded under the
trial, the accused took;::4_.c’i’efen;:;Ve “denial did not
hear} any evidence. On on recorti,
the trial eougf of the charges
levelled “file acquittal, the State
has pzefeiied _
_3. I lfive hexajd Athe 1eau:ned Government Advocate and
– ” v aIs0′: §1e;_(§ou:1se1 far respondent.
V contention of the Iearned Government
Pleegder iiespite sufieient material on record, the trial
aeqziiited the aecuseci and that the onder impugned is
perverse. K
. V. * the”o$3cia1é of hdepartxnent. There is nothing to prove
had enoroached 6 guntas of land out of
spot mghazar, there is no materia} placeci on record to prove
v”~V’_AAenc}foachment. Mere era} statement of PWS. I to 3 that there
{gas encroachment of 6 guntas, in Sy.No.80 itself is
5. The perusal of evidence of PWS. 1 to 3 reveal
the date of mahazar–exh;ibit P.1, they went
found encroachment of 6 guntas of.1an_d Vt
Village and drawn the spot
of cross–~exa131.inat1’on revealethet wasbV:v’ne”:fi1.iI\zey
demarcation of Sy.No.£§O. material
placed by the the encztoachment
and the house {the land bearing
regional __je2es””v.’encfoachment, it was
necessaxy ifor to hold the survey,
demaivcate htrther to prove that there is
encroachment In the cross–~examination,
none’ ofAthe’4eeV.:§=§7it13esees etate that there was any survey by
1evieion~S3f.tEJo;80. Except proeiucing the property extract and
inslzfficient When there are competent authorities to
oC_
dcmarcate the boundaries, the ixzvcstigatjng was
bound to prove the eracmachment by surveying
and demarcate the bcmndaries. In the ‘M
material, the “trial court was _;;isfi§iea._ -1aec’1_i1ifc:i;i”gV’V
respondent.
6. In the circ1i1:11_sta;1ces_,___}:IV”‘d:o apt fiierit in the
appeal. Hence, I pI’OCtV”:(i.’.3: £0′ };§as:3b’tv1′;:1é&:’V«f§>§€L3″aI;iz1g order;
_.The :;j_s._disi11i_ sséd–‘…_H_
sal-
Judge