1. The present appellants has preferred this Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge & Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Godhara, Panmachalas in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2000, whereby he quashed and set aside the order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra passed in Criminal Case No.2467 of 1996.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant, the disputed land of Revenue Survey No.1175 was fencing and it was broken and same was trespassed by to cultivate the land by some unknown persons. Out of unknown persons, one person is accused – respondent No.2. The said land is of ownership of applicant – Corporation. Therefore, complaint was lodged against the accused. He was chargesheet before the learned Magistrate. After hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra by his order dated 29.7.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.2467 of 1996, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 1 and half month imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/, in default, to further undergo 15 days S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, he was ordered to undergo one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/, in default, to further undergo one month and 15 days S.I. Against this order, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before Sessions Court, Godhra. Learned Joint District Judge & Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Godhra, by an order dated 28.9.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2000, quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused from the charges. Therefore, this Revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Raulji submitted that the whole land of survey No.1175/1 was acquired by the complainant in the year 1972 and amount has been paid to the owners of the land and now after long period of time, the accused came up with a new cases of ownership. He also submitted that the learned Magistrate convicted the accused on the basis of evidence available on record, but the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciated the evidence. He prayed to allow this Revision by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
4. Heard the learned APP Mr. Kodekar for the State.
5. Perused the application and record of the case. I have also perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge also. I have perused the record of the case and also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. After the considering the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant. From the record, it appears that the applicant Corporation has not proved that the disputed land is of its ownership as there was no any evidence showing the occupation and ownership of the disputed land. It was also not proved that the damage and trespass under the provisions of the Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. Even the witness Mr. Vikramsinhji Natvarsinh Raulji examined at Exhibit 16 stated in his crossexamination that he did not know about the revenue record of the disputed land. The ingredients of the provisions of Section 427 and 447 have not been proved against the accused and, therefore, Sessions Court acquitted the accused. The Sessions Court has carefully taken into consideration the provisions of alleged offence. Therefore, I am in agreement with the findings given by the Sessions Court and it has rightly quashed and set aside the order of learned Magistrate. I do not find any substance in this Revision. Hence, this Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)