Re :- Condonation Application In Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 378 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ahmad Ullah Khan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Office is directed to allot a regular number.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Anand Sri./-
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 378 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ahmad Ullah Khan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State-appellant and perused the material placed on record.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from charges in Case No.1764 of 2001, under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.11.2000 one Babu Lal, Forest Officer along with his subordinates, Shaniti Swaroop Singh, Forester, Jamuna Prasad Forester, Azim Hasan Khan, Forest Guard, Om Prakash Forest Guard were on patrolling duty to protect illegal hunting of Siberian birds at Sharda Sagar Dam. When they reached near 15 km. they have received information by informer that a Gypsy of Military color bearing Registration No.DNJ-1785 is going towards Khatima in which 6 -7 person are there on the said jypsy and they illegality hunted Cheetal and Cheetal meat is kept in a basket covered with fish and ice. At about 12.30 the above said jypsy was stopped and persons sitting in the alleged jypsy jumped out ad tried to escape away. Babulal along with staff chased them and arrested six of them while one person having D.B.B.L. gun in his hands and cartridges belt on his waist and a bag on his shoulder succeeded to escape away from the spot. On search being made Cheetal meat was found in a basket covered with fish and ice in the jypsy.
The case was registered under Section 51 of the Wile Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the accused respondents. After registration of the case, the case was investigated and report was submitted before the court of law.
Witnesses Shanti Swaroop Singh – P.W.1, Ajim Hasan – P.W.2, Babu Lal – P.W.3 and Javed Alam P.W.4 had been examined to prove the prosecution case.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that, learned court below recorded the acquittal against the accused persons on the basis that there is no chemical examiner report against the recovered meat. The recovered meat does not come in the category prohibited under the 1972 Act. The presence, involvement and complicity in commission of the crime against the accused persons established by the cogent and credible evidence recorded before the trial court were not proved.
It is relevant to mention that in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs.
Apex Court has held that :-
"Only in a case when the judgement of the trial court is stated to be perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence, only then conclusion drawn by the trial Court could be re-appraised."
In K. Prakashan Vs. P. K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC, 258, Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-
"When two views are possible appellate Court should not reverse the judgement of acquittal merely because the other view was possible when judgement of trial court was neither perverse nor suffered from any illegality or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified."
In T. Subramanyan Vs. Tamilnadu (2006) 1 SCC, page 401, Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that :-
"Where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
In light of above legal propositions and on a careful perusal of the impugned judgement and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence, does not provide any ground for interfering with the order of sentence, unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgement and order. The impugned judgement and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. On the evidence, available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is hereby rejected and consequently the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Anand Sri./-