The Court emphasized that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal, as established in the case of Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. And Others.

1. Heard Mr. K. Vinayagan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and Mr. V. Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent.

2. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in C.A. No. 93 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by confirming the acquittal order passed in C.C.No.13 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor dated 07.07.2015.

3. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents stating that the respondents gave false evidence in C.C.129 of 1991. A case was filed against the petitioner as if teakwood were seized from the agricultural land of the petitioner and that the case was registered in C.C.No.129 of 1991. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner. In that case, the respondents have given evidence as if there is an Odai on the northern, southern and eastern side of the land. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents in C.C.NO.1 of 1994 and transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and numbered as C.C.No.13 of 1999 for malicious prosecution and for giving false evidence before the Court. The trial Court after the trial, acquitted A1 to A8. Against the order of the acquittal, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.93 of 2015 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. After hearing both sides, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents are Government Officials and they harass the petitioner by filing false case and they prepared forged documents with the false evidence as if there was Odai. The lower Court has dismissed the private complaint merely on the basis that the petitioner has not narrated these things at the time of his remand and at the time of filing the bail application itself.

5. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the respondents found that the petitioner is having possession of teak wood, which is a scheduled timber. The seventh respondent is the complainant and the respondents 1 to 6 are Forest Officers and the teak wood was found in Survey No. 474 which belongs to the accused. The teak wood was seized by the Forest Officers. The petitioner was charged for the offences of having possession of scheduled Timber without prior sanction of the Forest Officer. It is stated that one Periyasamy, a Forest Officer has already dead and the respondents 1 to 6 are retired Officers and are aged about more than 60 years old. Further the allegation against the petitioner is that they gave false statements that there is a odai near the petitioner's land.

6. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that if the petitioner finds fault with these respondents, he has to approach the District Forest Officer or the District Collector concerned. Moreover, the petitioner has filed a suit for damages against the respondents claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for malicious prosecution. The suit was dismissed finding no merits in the suit. It is further stated that the place is near a mountain area and during rainy season, there used to be small streams here and there. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the Judgment of the civil Court. The petitioner approached this Court after two years from the date of Judgment. So this appeal is time bared and prayed that the petition is to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the Judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Suryanarayana Raju v. State reported in 1987 CRL. L.J. 118, which reads as follows:

“Prosecution for giving false evidence – Essential ingredients to be satisfied – Judgment stating that it is unsafe to rely upon evidence of witness as it is not supported by evidence of mediators – Discr