State of Uttaranchal vs Preetam Singh and Others

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—In the interest of justice, delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. Respondents no. 1 & 3, namely, Preetam Singh and Swaroop Singh, have been served personally. But none appeared on their behalf even in the second revised call made at 3.30 pm. Whereabouts of the respondent no. 2 Saran Singh could not be traced and he remains urserved.

So, this Court rendered hearing to the learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant on the leave to appeal application. Also perused the impugned judgment and order.

By the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 552/2003, State v. Preetam Singh & Others, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents from the charge of offence punishable u/s 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the Forest Guard, who arrested the accused persons and prepared the memo on the spot, has also conducted the investigation in the matter and submitted the chargesheet. This fact was in the notice of the superiors. Despite having knowledge of the above facts, the investigation was entrusted to the same Forest Guard who arrested the accused persons and prepared the recovery memo. This has vitiated the entire investigation and has been accepted as a ground of acquittal by the trial court.

Besides PW2 Yashpal Chandra was not able to explain as to how the three accused were implicated in the matter while he had seen only one of them.

So, in the above circumstances, the Court feels that the grounds, which are stated in the memo of appeal, are stereotyped and are without any substance.

Resultantly, the leave to appeal is refused. Government Appeal is accordingly rejected. Trial court record be sent back.