JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAILASH SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jaipur Development Authority is aggrieved by judgment dated 30th August, 2001, passed by Special Court (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondent and has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 29.03.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, JDA Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.1992, the JDA had submitted a complaint before the JDA Tribunal, wherein it claimed that on 05.09.1992 Narendra Singh, the Enforcement Officer, was inspecting Bairathi Bhawan, wherein it was discovered that Kailash had illegally placed three shutters of 12 x 9 ft. and had encroached upon the Verendah. In fact, he had allegedly covered the entire Verendah and had started renovation in his shop, but without the prior permission of the JDA. In order to prove its case, the JDA had produced three witnesses and had submitted certain documents. In defence, the accused respondent had examined himself as a witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 29th March 2001, the learned Tribunal had convicted the accused respondent for offences under Sections 31(1) and 32(7) of the JDA Act.

(2.) Since the accused respondent was aggrieved by the judgment dated 29th March 2001, he filed an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred to the learned Judge. Vide judgment dated 30th of August, 2001, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent of the aforementioned offences and quashed and set aside the judgment dated 29.03.2001. Hence, this Criminal Leave to Appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Jinesh Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that vide notification dated 07.11.1983, the Authority had authorized the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Deputy Director (Enforcement) to submit the complaint against those persons who were indulged in illegal construction. However, the learned Judge has overlooked the said notification. Instead, the learned Judge has relied upon the notification dated 25.08.1990, whereby the Secretary, JDA, the Director (Enforcement) and Deputy Director (Enforcement) were authorized to submit the complaint. Therefore, the learned Judge has misread of evidence.