Dismissed
Yaspal v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-A/1067/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-1067-MA of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: February 08, 2016
Yash Pal
...Applicant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Applicant-Yash Pal has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondents State of Haryana and Amar Singh, challenging the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is against the evidence brought on record and is based upon surmises and conjectures and contains many infirmities. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to file appeal be granted.
Notice of motion.
VINEET GULATI 2016.02.15 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-1067-MA of 2013
-2-
On the asking of the Court, Mr.Vikaramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and contests the application.
Ms.Saumya Ahluwalia, Advocate, who had already been appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 against notice regarding application for condonation of delay, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and contests the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
As per the record, the complainant Yash Pal filed a complaint against accused Amar Singh under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. As per complainant's version, accused is duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jubbal, but he is not doing any work as per the wishes of the villagers and is working only just to give benefit to himself and the persons with him. Forest Department had planted 34650 numbers of kikar and safeda trees in the land of Gram Panchayat. In 2002, accused got counted and marked the said trees from Forest Department. BDO had fixed certain terms and conditions for cutting and removing the trees in question as per patta register maintained by Shamlat Chaupal. It is further stated that one of the condition is that no tree of pipal and barr or the tree without number will be cut down by the contractor. Accordingly, the contractor cut down the numbered trees and left the trees without number, barr and pipal. Accused in connivance with members of panchayat, started cutting the trees without number and
VINEET GULATI 2016.02.15 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-1067-MA of 2013
-3-
now there were no trees without number, which were left by BDO, Radaur. It is also stated that complainant along with other villagers reported the matter to BDO but he connivance with Sarpanch did not take any action. Bricks which were paved in the village Street became very old and accused in connivance with other person had removed the old bricks and paved again in the street showing in record that new bricks were paved in the street and grabbed the amount of bricks. It is further stated that there is a brick kiln in the land of panchayat, which produced bricks to the extent of 70,000/per annum but accused was grabbing the amount of those bricks every year and accused had also grabbed the income of 30,000`35000/- of bricks handed over to him by previous panchayat. The allegations are also that accused has encroached upon the land of the gram panchayat.
In pre-charge evidence, complainant examined himself as CW-1, Prithvi Raj as CW-2, Mehar Singh as CW-3, Basu Ram as CW4 and Rishi Pal Clerk, DFO Office as CW-5. After framing of the charge, the witnesses were examined.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accusedrespondent vide impugned judgment dated 10.10.2011.
Learned Magistrate held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as it has come in the cross-examination of the complainant CW1 and CW-2 Prithvi Raj that Ram Pal and Roshan had encroached
VINEET GULATI 2016.02.15 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-1067-MA of 2013
-4-
upon the land belonging to gram panchayat and for removing their illegal encroachment, accused-Sarpanch of the village had filed application before BDPO. Complainant himself stated that appeal preferred by Ram Pal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. CW-2 Prithvi Raj has stated that he did not know as to whether his brother had illegality encroached upon the land belonging to gram panchayat. The copy of the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Yamuna Nagar in case titled as 'Gram Panchayat, Jubbal vs. Munna Lal etc.' has been placed on the record which shows that in this case, Roshan Lal, who is brother of Prithvi Raj was arrayed as respondent No.10. The said case was decided in favour of the gram panchayat and the respondents were dispossessed from the land. The Court below held that the complainant and its witnesses have grudge against the accused as he had filed an ejectment petition against the near and dear of complainant and its witnesses for removing their illegal encroachment from the panchayat land.
Learned Magistrate further held that it has come in the statement of the complainant and witnesses that the value of the trees standing in the panchayat land was assessed by the Forest Department as 3,84,507/- but the same were sold by way of open auction for an amount of 8,62,007/-. The Court further held that evidence on record does not suggest that either accused had embezzled any property belonging to gram panchayat Jubbar or misappropriated the same by converting to his own use.
VINEET GULATI 2016.02.15 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-1067-MA of 2013
-5-
Nothing has been argued as to how the findings given by the Court below are perverse or against the law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the findings given by learned Court below, in no way, can be held as perverse. The impugned judgment dated 10.10.2011 passed by learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.
Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
February 08, 2016 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
VINEET GULATI 2016.02.15 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yash Pal
State of Haryana
Amar Singh
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court