Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Sanjay Narang on 2 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2489
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2015
02nd April, 2025
Cantonment Board ............Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Narang .........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since common question of law and facts are involved in
these appeals, therefore these are being heard and decided by this
common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity facts of CRLA
No.208 of 2015 are being considered and discussed.
2. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-complainant
assailing the judgment and order dated 26.03.2015 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case
No.1967 of 2014. By the said judgment, the said court has acquitted
the respondent accused person of the offence punishable under
Section 247 of Cantonment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act
of 2006").
3. The facts in brief are that the land in dispute, bearing
Survey No.157 know as "Dahlia Bank", is situated at Landour Cantt.
Mussorie. Allegedly because of different notifications duly passed,
any constructions/renovation in the said property can only be done
after receiving NOC's from Institute of Technology Management
(ITM), Landour Cantt, Mussorie and from Defense Estate Officer. The
complainant/appellant alleged that construction was done without
2025:UHC:2489
receiving the aforesaid NOC's hence it makes out an offence under
Section 247 of Act of 2006. The trial court after recording statement
of appellant under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. summoned the
accused under Section 247 of Act of 2006.
4. During trial only one witness was produced by
prosecution in order to prove its case. Thereafter, the statement of
respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in
which he denied prosecution story. The trial court at end of trial has
recorded the finding of acquittal. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite
repeated orders from the Court and rejection of NOC's from
administration authorities, accused continued his illegal construction
& even after cogent ocular evidence the trial court acquitted the
accused.
6. In this matter the trial court disbelieved the story of the
appellant on the grounds that the accused was able to prove that due
resolutions were passed in his favour for sanctioning the construction,
the complainant could not prove quashing of the said resolutions by
this Court neither the prosecution was able to prove violation of
Section 247 of Act of 2006 which contemplates raising of illegal
construction in government land. As in an earlier decision passed by a
competent court, it was held that the accused was the owner of the
alleged land.
7. Heard and perused the Trial Court Record very carefully
with the help of learned counsel for the parties. The finding recoded
by the learned trial court is quite convincing and needs no
interference.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The respondents
have been acquitted. In appeal against acquittal, it is held by Apex
Court in catena of judgments that the Courts should be slow in
interfering in the judgments of acquittal as the innocence of the
accused is further re-enforced by his acquittal. Unless and until there
2025:UHC:2489
is perversity in the judgment of acquittal, the same should not be
interfered with.
9. It is trite law that that while hearing the appeal against
acquittal, the power of reviewing evidence must be exercised with
great care and caution. In order to ensure that the innocents are not
punished, the appellate court should attach due weight to the lower
court's acquittal because the presumption of the innocence is further
strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should reverse an
acquittal only when it has "very substantial and compelling reasons". I
am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10
SCC 450. For the sake of convenience, paragraph no.3 of the said
judgment is quoted below:-
"3. We have endeavoured to set out the guidelines
for the appellate courts in dealing with appeals against
acquittal. An overriding theme emanates from the law on
appeals against acquittals. The appellate court is given wide
powers to review the evidence to come to its own conclusions.
But this power must be exercised with great care and caution.
In order to ensure that the innocents are not punished, the
appellate court should attach due weight to the lower court's
acquittal because the presumption of innocence is further
strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should,
therefore, reverse an acquittal only when it has "very
substantial and compelling reasons".
10. The trial court has passed an elaborate judgment for
recording the finding of acquittal and this Court does not want to
reiterate the same for the sake of repetition.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant could not argue any
ground so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by
the trial court.
12. For the aforesaid reasons and following the dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, I am also of the considered view that no ground
for interference, at all, is made out in this matter, as there is no
illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order.
13. All the appeals are bereft of merit and the same are
2025:UHC:2489
accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 26.03.2015
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal
Complaint Case No.1967 of 2014 whereby the respondent was
acquitted, are affirmed.
14. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court
for consignment.
15. Office is directed to keep copies of this judgment & order
in each file for records.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.04.2025
SK
