Dismissed

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner v. Parkash Chand Dua Son of Jethanand Dua

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2023CRLA/390/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench at Jaipur dismissed an S.B. Criminal Appeal filed by the Jaipur Development Authority. The bench upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that prosecution witnesses admitted procedural flaws, specifically the lack of authorization to file the complaint and an unsigned enforcement report, which were fatal to the case.

What did the court decide?

The S.B. Criminal Appeal filed by the Jaipur Development Authority is dismissed. The order of acquittal is upheld.

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner Vs… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:41366]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 390/1990

¶4

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Parkash Chand Dua Son Of Jethanand Dua, 140, Shanker Colony, Nayakheda Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ribhu Dutta with Ms. Kavita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

09/10/2023

¶13

Instant appeal is preferred by appellant-JDA against the respondent aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 21.04.1989 in Criminal Case No.287/1988 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 (JDA), Jaipur whereby respondent was acquitted from charge under Section 72 of the JDA Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal would submitted that a complaint is filed against the respondent for illegal construction which is violative of provision under Section 72 of the JDA Act. He further submitted that appellant has led evidence before the trial Court but same was not considered and learned trial Court without any justifiable reason acquitted the respondent. He further submitted that from site plan and factual report, unauthorized construction was established before the trial Court and which was further fortified from oral

[2023:RJ-JP:41366]

[CRLA-390/1990]

(2 of 3)

evidence but the trial Court has failed to consider aforesaid in light of legal provisions. At last he submitted that the order of acquittal of learned trial Court is perverse and against the facts and material on record, therefore, same is required to be set aside.

¶19

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that no unauthorized or illegal construction was carried out by the respondent but due to animosity and on wrong facts, a complaint case was filed against the respondent. He further submitted that normally Appellate Court cannot interfere in order of acquittal passed by the Court below and herein, the appellant has failed to show any perversity or illegality, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.

¶20

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

In a criminal complaint filed by JDA, respondent was tried for offence under Section 72 of the JDA Act. In support of complaint 3 witnesses PW1-Hari Shanker, PW-2-Radheyshyam and PW3Shyam Singh were produced by the prosecution and respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he opted not to submit any defence evidence. After hearing the counsels for the parties, respondent was acquitted by learned trial Court.

¶22

The allegation upon respondent was for raising unauthorized construction of 22 X 2 feet balcony and for this construction a site plan Ex.P1 and a notice Ex.P2 were filed and exhibited on behalf of appellant. The admission of PW1 in cross-examination clearly indicated that the house of respondent was constructed way before and accused had not encroached. Similary, PW2 admitted that there was no signature of enforcement officer on Ex.P2. PW3-

[2023:RJ-JP:41366]

[CRLA-390/1990]

(3 of 3)

Shyam Singh was the person who filed the complaint but he admitted that the authorization was not filed with the complaint. 7. Aforesaid admission in cross-examination of witnesses clearly indicated that the person who filed the complaint has not filed authorization letter on behalf of JDA, therefore, it was not proved that PW3 was authorized to file the complaint. Similarly, the report submitted by JDA was not signed by enforcement officer. The unauthorized construction was not proved from aforesaid evidence, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent.

¶27

In view of aforesaid, the trial Court has not committed any error while acquitting respondent, thus, no perversity or illegality was shown by appellant in impugned order.

¶28

Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is dismissed.

¶29

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶30

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶31

Arun/420

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner v. Parkash Chand Dua Son of Jethanand Dua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner v. Parkash Chand Dua Son of Jethanand Dua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhan Khan S/O Shri Rahamat B/C Meo Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla @ Sushila W/O Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Girraj S/O Shri Jagannath Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetan S/O Kanhaiyalal B/C Kalal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Iklas Son of Sallam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sokin @ Kochiya S/O Khasim Kha B/C Leelghar Vs State of Rajasthan