N M KULLAN Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri in C. C. No. 27 of 1996 dated 11. 2. 1998 acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 379 and 427 I. P. C

(2.) THE case arising out of a private complaint filed by the complainant against three accused is that he was owning a land of 30 cents at Naduhatty village and he was in possession of the said land for the last 43 years and there were Karpoora and Seegai trees planted in that land. It is alleged by the complainant that during the year 1993 April, all the three accused cut and removed the trees from his land and as a result, he suffered a loss at Rs. 40,000/ -. Thereafter, during September 1995, the accused 1 to 3 once again removed the trees from the land of the complainant and committed theft. On 26. 9. 1995, the complainant sent a report to the Forest Ranger through telegram but the Forest Ranger has not concerned with the same and as a result, he sent a telegraphic report to the District Collector on 28. 9. 1995. He also sent a petition on 13. 10. 1995 to Kothagiri sub Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coonoor on 18. 10. 2005. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kothagiri referred the matter as a civil dispute. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present private complaint in this case stating that he has suffered a loss of rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(3.) THE complainant in order to prove his case examined four witnesses. The complainant himself has examined as p. W. I and he has stated the allegations against the accused 1 to 3 as narrated above. The complainant-P. W. 1 also stated further that his steps to compromise the matter proved futile. Ex. P1 is the Assistant Settlement Officer's Notorised copy regarding the ownership of the land. Ex. P2 is the Chitta's Notorised copy. Ex. P3 is the field Map Certificate. On 26. 9. 1936 the complainant has sent a petition by way of telegram to the Forest Ranger and the telegram receipt is marked as Ex. P4. The complainant has sent a petition through telegram to the District Collector on 29. 9. 1995 and the same is marked as Ex. PS but P. W. 1 has not received any reply for the petition. P. W. I also sent the written reports to kothagiri Police Station Sub Inspector, deputy Superintendent of Police and superintendent of Police under Ex. P6. He has received the acknowledgment from the sub Inspector of Police under Ex. P7. From the Superintendent of Police, he has received the acknowledgment under Ex. PS. From the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he has received the acknowledgment under Ex. P9. P. W. 1 also claimed that he has sent a legal notice to all the three accused under Ex. P10 and the accused receiving the notice not chosen to send any reply. The legal notice sent to the first accused returned unserved and the return cover is marked as Ex. P. 11. Ex. P12 is the acknowledgment for the service of notice to A2. Ex. P13 is the postal acknowledgment for the service of notice to A3. P. W. 1 also sent a notice under the Certificate of Posting under Ex. P14. A1 has sent a reply under Ex. P15. Ex. P 16 is the further reply sent to the counsel for Al and the postal acknowledgment for sending the notice is Ex. P 17. A2 has also sent a reply under Ex. P 18. A3 has not chosen to send any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant.