Delhi District Court
State vs B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr. on 17 March, 2017
State v. B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA ,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
DD No. 42
PS Mehrauli
U/s 5/15 of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 376/1/06 2 Date of commission : 03.08.2006 3 Date of institution of the case : 17.08.2006 4 Name of complainant : HC Ajit Singh 5 Name of accused : (I) Laxma S/o Sh. Doopla, R/o L1/98, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Absconder). (ii) Jaipal Reddy S/o Sh. Penta Reddy, R/o I3/149, Kalkaji, New Delhi. 6 Offence complained of : U/s 5/15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8 Arguments heard on : 17.03.2017 9 Final order : Jaipal ReddyAcquitted. 10 Date of judgment : 17.03.2017 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on DD No. 42 , PS Mehrauli 1 of 5 State v. B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
03.08.2006 at about 12.02 AM, at 7/12, forest lane, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, accused Laxma was boring the land for taking out ground water at the instructions of accused Jaipal Reddy without permission of Central Ground Water board and in contravention of the directions given by the Central Government prohibiting boring of land for taking out ground water. Hence, the kalandra u/s 5/15 of Environment Act, 1986 was prepared.
2. The kalandra/ chargesheet was filed. Copies were supplied to both accused in compliance of section 207 of Cr.PC. Accused Laxma was declared absconder vide order dated 01.07.2013.
3. Prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 5/15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was made out against accused Jaipal Reddy. Formal notice was framed on 19.08.2013. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. PW1 Ct. Satvir Singh and PW2 ASI Ajit Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.08.2006, on receiving of DD No. 36 regarding illegal bore well, they went to Forest Lane, Sainik Farm, 7/12, Mehrauli, New Delhi & found that boring was going on with the help of bore well machine. The bore well machine was got stopped by them and they alongwith driver namely Laxma and bore well machine returned back to PP IGNOU. Accused Laxma was arrested by PW2 HC Ajit Singh and he prepared memo Ex.PW1/A and boring machine was also DD No. 42 , PS Mehrauli 2 of 5 State v. B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. They identified the case property Ex.P1. PW2 ASI Ajit Singh also deposed that he interrogated accused Laxma who told that he was conducting water harvesting. He asked for permission from accused Laxma, but he failed to produce any permission and told him that the same was with accused Jaipal Reddy. He told accused Laxma to call accused Jaipal Reddy and he replied that accused Jaipal Reddy was out of Delhi. He again asked him to show permission from house of accused Jaipal Reddy for carrying out boring, but he failed to produce the same. Thereafter, they alongwith bore well machine and accused Laxma returned back to PP IGNOU. On 16.08.2006, accused Jaipal Reddy came to PP IGNOU. He was interrogated by him and he arrested accused Jaipal Reddy and prepared arrest memo Ex.2/A. He prepared a kalanadra under Section 5/15 Environment Protection Act.
5. PW3 HC Jitender Kumar deposed that on 02/03.08.2006 at about 12.02 am, he was sent by Ct. Shiv Karan with DD No. 36 dated 02/03.08.2006 to HC Ajit Singh. He met HC Ajit Singh at IGNOU road and he handed over DD NO. 36 to him. He produced the original roznamacha register (OSR).
6. PW4 HC Shiv Karan that on 23.08.2006 at about 12.14 am, he received a WT message from wireless set with control room no. S.50 regarding illegal boring at Sainik Farm and noises due to boring. He sent DD No.36 through Ct. Raghubir to HC Ajit Singh. He produced the record pertaining to DD No. 2516 dated 16.08.2016 Ex. PW5/C. he also produced the record of DD No. 36 Ex. PW5/A and copy of DD no. 42 Ex.PW5/B. DD No. 42 , PS Mehrauli 3 of 5 State v. B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
7. PE was closed on 02.12.2016. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 17.03.2017. Accused Jaipal Reddy opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
8. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP as well as of ld.
defence counsel. I have also gone through evidence on record very carefully.
9. It is the case of prosecution that PW1 Ct. Satvir Singh and PW2 ASI Ajit Singh went to the spot and found illegal boring was being carried out in the land of accused Jaipal Reddy. Accused Laxma (absconder) was apprehended there alongwith boring machine. However, accused Jaipal Reddy was not present there.
10. It was incumbent on the part of prosecution to establish that illegal boring was being carried out in the land belonging to or in possession of accused Jaipal Reddy. However, there is absolutely no material on record to show that either the land belonged to accused Jaipal Reddy or he was in possession thereof. The prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that the said illegal boring was being carried out at the instance of accused Jaipal Reddy. The investigating officer did not collect any bill or other record from the owner of boring machine to show that the said boring machine was brought to the spot at the instructions of accused Jaipal Reddy.
11. The DD entries vide which the information regarding DD No. 42 , PS Mehrauli 4 of 5 State v. B. Jaipal Reddy & Anr.
illegal boring was received in PS has also not been proved on record.
12. In Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that, "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
13. In view of aforementioned discussion, it has to be said that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish connection of accused Jaipal Reddy with the commission of offence. It has to be concluded that accused Jaipal Reddy cannot be convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Therefore, accused Jaipal Reddy is given the benefit of doubt. Hence, accused Jaipal Reddy is acquitted from charge of having committed offence u/s 5/15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
14. The accused was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437 A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA)
court on 17.03.2017 MM5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
DD No. 42 , PS Mehrauli 5 of 5