Cantonment Board v. Sanjay Narang

Section 247 of Act of 2006. The trial court after recording statement of appellant under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. summoned the accused under Section 247 of Act of 2006.

During trial only one witness was produced by prosecution in order to prove its case. Thereafter, the statement of respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied prosecution story. The trial court at end of trial has recorded the finding of acquittal. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite repeated orders from the Court and rejection of NOC’s from administration authorities, accused continued his illegal construction & even after cogent ocular evidence the trial court acquitted the accused.

In this matter the trial court disbelieved the story of the appellant on the grounds that the accused was able to prove that due resolutions were passed in his favour for sanctioning the construction, the complainant could not prove quashing of the said resolutions by this Court neither the prosecution was able to prove violation of Section 247 of Act of 2006 which contemplates raising of illegal construction in government land. As in an earlier decision passed by a competent court, it was held that the accused was the owner of the alleged land.

Heard and perused the Trial Court Record very carefully with the help of learned counsel for the parties. The finding recoded by the learned trial court is quite convincing and needs no interference.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. The respondents have been acquitted. In appeal against acquittal, it is held by Apex Court in catena of judgments that the Courts should be slow in interfering in the judgments of acquittal as the innocence of the accused is further re-enforced by his acquittal. Unless and until there 2 is perversity in the judgment of acquittal, the same should not be interfered with.

It is trite law that that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, the power of reviewing evidence must be exercised with great care and caution. In order to ensure that the innocents are not punished, the appellate court should attach due weight to the lower court’s acquittal because the presumption of the innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should reverse an acquittal only when it has “very substantial and compelling reasons”. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450. For the sake of convenience, paragraph no.3 of the said judgment is quoted below:- “3. We have endeavoured to set out the guidelines for the appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittal. An overriding theme emanates from the law on appeals against acquittals. The appellate court is given wide powers to review the evidence to come to its own conclusions. But this power must be exercised with great care and caution. In order to ensure that the innocents are not punished, the appellate court should attach due weight to the lower court’s acquittal because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should, it has “very therefore, reverse an acquittal only when substantial and compelling reasons”.

The trial court has passed an elaborate judgment for recording the finding of acquittal and this Court does not want to reiterate the same for the sake of repetition.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not argue any ground so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court.

For the aforesaid reasons and following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am also of the considered view that no ground for interference, at all, is made out in this matter, as there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order.

All the appeals are bereft of merit and the same are 3 accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 26.03.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No.1967 of 2014 whereby the respondent was acquitted, are affirmed.

Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment.

Office is directed to keep copies of this judgment & order in each file for records. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.04.2025 4