Unknown vs Sanjay Narang
2025 Latest Caselaw 3506 UK

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. 212 of 2015
                                 02nd April, 2025

Cantonment Board                                              ...........Appellant
                                      Versus

Sanjay Narang                                                .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This 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.2768 of 2014. By the said judgment, the said court has acquitted the respondent accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 247 of Cantonment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2006").

2. The facts in brief are that one Mr. Vishal was directed by Letter No.13/157/Vol-IV/CBL/09 to seize material used for unauthorized construction on a property bearing Survey No.157 A known "Dahiliya Bank", but when he reached there the accused person obstructed him to enter the alleged property & thereby prevented him to seize the material, thereby committing offence punishable under Sections 239 and 333 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 Sections 239 and 313 of Act of 2006.

3. At the very outset it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that trial court has copy pasted its judgment passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.2768 of 2014, wherein the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 247 of Act of 2006 while in the present case the prosecution was leveled under Sections 239 and 333

2025:UHC:2489 of Act of 2006. Thus a grave irregularity has been committed by acquitting the accused for offence for which he was not charged and prosecuted. The fact is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent accused.

4. In such view of the matter, present criminal appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 26.03.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the concerned trial court to try and decide the case on its own merits, under sections in which complaint was filed, particularly in view of the evidence adduced by the parties and pass a fresh judgment and order by conducting a de-novo trial. Since the trial has already been delayed, the trial court is directed to decide the trial as early as possible, but not later than one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.04.2025 SK