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
1
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
2