1 14-Cr.APPA-937-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 937 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 6087 OF 2025 State of Maharashtra -- VERSUS -- Shri Kartikswami Maharaj and Others __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. G.S. Umale, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Advocate for the Non-applicants. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2025. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 937 OF 2025:- Heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This is an application seeking leave to file appeal. The application has been filed by the State seeking leave to prefer the appeal against the judgment and order dated 27/07/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the non-applicants for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(a) (d)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 2025:BHC-NAG:12252 2 14-Cr.APPA-937-2025 1927, and under Sections 27 and 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. The learned A.P.P. submits that the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, the non- applicants had encroached upon forest land, approximately 4.776 acres of land was encroached, and construction was also carried out on the said land. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.-1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 depicts that the land is forest land, and therefore, in any case, cannot be given to the non- applicants. He also submits that Compartment No. 242 was reserved for Forest Sanctuary, and hence, the possession of the non-applicants is illegal. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that permission for construction in Compartment No. 242 had been granted by the Forest Department. The allotment had been made to the non-applicants before declaration of the area as a reserved forest. He submits that permission for construction of the temple and the dharamshala was accorded in accordance with law. After the declaration of the Chaprala Reserved Forest, no encroachment has taken place. Initially, it was forest land and part of the Allapalli Forest, which was subsequently declared as Chaprala Sanctuary by notification dated 25/02/1986. He invited my 3 14-Cr.APPA-937-2025 attention to the evidence of P.W. 2, deposed at Exh. 109, wherein, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the construction was very old, but he had not made any inquiry into its exact age. It was further submitted that the temple was constructed before the declaration of reserved forest. In his cross- examination, the witness also admitted that the temple (Prashant Dham Hanuman Mandir, Chaprala) had been in existence since 1945-46 and the entry of the same was in the record. He further admitted that by letters dated 18/04/1973 and 30/12/1975, permission had been granted to the trust to construct the temple and the dharamshala. The learned counsel for the non-applicant further submits that documentary evidence at Exhibits 170–172 to that effect is already placed on record. The document shows that Exh.172 is the permission granted to construct the temple and Dharamshala in the Compartment No.242 over an area of 4.776 acres of land. The said letter is dated 16/11/1978. Lastly, he submits that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive. Accordingly, he submits that it cannot be termed as encroachment. There is no merit in the application, and therefore, same may be dismissed. 5. Upon hearing the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the non-applicants, it appears that the Allapalli Forest was divided and a separate 4 14-Cr.APPA-937-2025 Chaprala Reserved Forest was declared by notification dated 25/02/1986. The evidence on record goes to show that the construction of the Prashant Dham Temple as well as Dharamshala was of pre-independence period, i.e., 1945-46. It further appears from the evidence that the forest officials, between 1973-1978 by forest orders granted permission for construction. Exh.170 shows that the Forest Officials of Allapalli Forest had granted permission to construct a Well and to complete construction of the temple and Exh.172 also depicts that on area of 4.776 acres of land, forest officials permitted to construct the Prashant Dham Temple in the Compartment No.242 by giving valid permission. 6. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on record, it could be said that the prosecution has failed to establish the encroachment on the forest land. On the contrary, there were valid permission granted from time to time. Further, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the case to prove the guilt of the accused persons under Section 26(1)(a)(d)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Sections 27 and 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find that there is no merit, and 5 14-Cr.APPA-937-2025 therefore, leave is refused to prefer the appeal, and accordingly, the Criminal Application [APPA] No. 937/2025 is disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan