Dismissed

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen v. Mrs.Anita Rajendrakumar and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2009APEAL/747/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the Nagarparishad. The bench held that the trial Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused due to doubts regarding the panchnama and absent photography evidence. The conviction could not be established.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal sustained.

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 ( 1 )

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 747 of 1997

¶4

 Mahabaleshwar Giristan
 Nagarparishad, through
 its Overseer and Trees
 Officer, Shri M.M.
 Katekar,Adult, Aged 37
 years, Occupation
 service, resident at
 Mahabaleshwar, District
 Satara.

¶5

 .. Appellant.
 (Original Complainant)

¶6

versus.

¶7

 1. Mrs Anita
 Rajendrakumar, adult,
 Proprietor of Grand
 Hotel, Mahabaleshwar,
 C.T.S.No.18, District
 Satara.

¶8

 2. Mahadeo Baburao
 Kadam, adult, occupation
 Gardner, resident at
 Grand Hotel,
 Mahabaleshwar, District
 Satara.

¶9

 3. The State of
 Maharashtra.

¶10

 Respondents
 (Original accused.)

¶11

 ( 2 )

¶12

 Mr C. R. Sonawane, Advocate for the
 Appellant.

¶13

 Mr K. Y. Mandlik for Respondent No.1

¶14

 Mr S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent No.2

¶15

 Mr D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the State-
 Respondent No.3.

¶16

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J.

¶17

DATED : 24TH APRIL,2009.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶19

-------------

¶20

 1. Heard arguments of learned Advocate
 appearing for Mahabaleshwar Nagar Parishad,
 appellant original complainant and also
 arguments of learned Advocate for respondent
 Nos.1 and 2- original accused persons and also
 heard learned A.P.P.for the State.

¶21

 2. Present appeal is preferred by the
 appellant, Municipal Council against the
 judgment and order dated 10th April, 1997,
 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Wai
 camp at Mahabaleshwar,whereby respondent Nos.

¶22

 1 and 2 (accused) were acquitted for the
 offence punishable under Section 21 of the

¶23

 ( 3 )

¶24

 Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and
 Prevention of Trees, Act, 1975 in violation of
 Section 8 of the said Act.

¶25

 3. The case of the complainant is that
 accused no.1 owns hotel premises namely, Hotel
 Grand at Mahabaleshwar. It was noticed on 29th
 October, 1995 that about 33 trees were cut and
 fallen down in the said Hotel premises.
 Accordingly,a complaint was lodged and matter
 was investigated. Panchnama was drawn.
 Photographs were taken. After completion of
 investigation charge sheet was filed before the
 J.M.F.C. Wai.

¶26

 4. During the trial, three witnesses were
 examined. P.W.1 is the Trees Officer i.e.
 complainant. P.W.2 is the panch, a local
 reporter of a newspaper and P.W.3 is a
 Photographer. On perusal of the substantive
 evidence led before the trial Magistrate and on
 going through the reasoning given while
 acquitting accused persons, it appears that the
 Trial Magistrate has doubted as to whether the
 trees were cut within the premises of hotel

¶27

 ( 4 )

¶28

 Grand and whether the photographs produced by

¶29

 P.W.3 were of the same premises. Reasoning
 given by the Trial Magistrate is that panchnama
 shows that name of the second panch was blank
 and as such in the absence of examining second
 panch witness case of the complainant as to
 cutting down of the trees in the premises of
 the accused become doubtful. It is further
 held by the Trial Magistrate that the
 substantive evidence of P.W.3 Photographer
 cannot be taken as against the accused when he
 had not produced any bill for taking
 photographs and he has not developed the
 negative and took the photographs. Apart from
 what was weighed with the Trial Magistrate was
 the factual position, as admitted by P.W.3
 Photographer that he used to take snaps from
 various places for and on behalf of the
 complainant Municipal Council and he used to
 keep all such photographs with him till they
 were demanded by the complainant’s counsel. He
 used to give such individual packets to the
 Municipal Council. Also, what was weighed with
 the Trial Magistrate was the answer given by
 the Photographer that he had no knowledge as to

¶30

 ( 5 )

¶31

 from which premises he had taken photographs
 which were produced in the said matter and that
 said photographs did not show any premises of
 the Hotel Grand.

¶32

 5. After going through the said
 substantive evidence of P.W. Nos. 1 to 3,
 after hearing the rival submissions and
 considering the effect of the panchnama in the
 opinion of this Court, there is nothing to
 interfere with the impugned judgment and order
 in the present appeal and that there is nothing
 to alter the said order of acquittal so as to
 come to the conclusion as to establishment of
 guilt of the respondents - accused for the
 offence for which they are charged.

¶33

 6. In the result, present appeal is
 dismissed and accordingly disposed of. The
 impugned judgment and order dated 10th April,
 1997 shall sustain.

¶34

(A.R.JOSHI,J.)

¶35

 ( 6 )

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen v. Mrs.Anita Rajendrakumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen v. Mrs.Anita Rajendrakumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Renuka M. Kalro Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Devapriya (Huf) Vs P.S.Srinivasan and Anr.

Sagar Shamrao More Vs Satish Atmaram Khaladkar and Anr.