Allowed

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2022CRR/162/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by an applicant convicted under Sections 419 and 420 IPC by the Sessions Court. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the applicant due to lack of evidence, delay in FIR registration, absence of expert verification, and proven enmity between the witness and applicant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment is set aside; applicant acquitted from charges under Sections 419 and 420 IPC; fine refunded; bail bonds discharged.

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 162 of 2010

¶5

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu, S/o Sharda Prasad Shrivastava, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhimpuri, Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant – Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For State/respondent – Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

09-09-2022

¶13

The present criminal revision is filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bemetara in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2009 dated 1903-2010. The applicant was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.82/2008 vide judgment dated 28-11-2008. The appeal was preferred by the State and the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 19-03-2010 convicted the present applicant under Section 419 and 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months' further R.I. and R.I. for 3 years and 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine 4 months' further R.I., respectively, with a direction to run both sentences concurrently.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that a written complaint (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Ganga Das (PW-1) who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bheem Puri at the relevant time making allegation that the applicant who was Up-Sarpanch used the seal of Sarpanch and forged his signature on the progress report and issued certificates in connection with Indira Aawas/ Gramin Aawas scheme. On such complaint FIR was registered on 17-06-1997.

¶15

After investigation charge sheet was filed on 28-12-1997 by the police. The

¶16

¶17

trial Court framed charges for offence punishable under Section 419, 420 of the IPC against the present applicant. The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded nonguilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited documents in support of the case. The statement of the applicant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial Court acquitted the present applicant from the charges of offence under Section 419 and 220 of the IPC after appreciation of the evidence.

¶18

The State filed appeal against the acquittal of the applicant before the learned Sessions Court. The learned appellate Court after appreciation of the evidence and documents on record reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and convicted the present applicant for offence under Section 419 and 420 and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged forged signatures of the applicant have not been proved over Ex.-P/10 to P/17. He would further submit that from evidence it is crystal clear that the applicant has not caused any wrongful loss to the panchayat or procured any wrongful gain. He also submitted that Ganga Das (PW-1) has a stated in his evidence that he had personal enmity with the present applicant and the signatures and the seal have not been examined by any expert. Therefore, he prays for acquittal of the present applicant.

¶20

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that though the applicant was acquitted by the learned trial Court, but the learned lower appellate Court after careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the present applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

The written complaint was lodged by Ganga Das (PW-1) who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bheempuri at the relevant time, the FIR was also registered on 17-6-1997, but the same has not be exhibited by the prosecution for the reason best known to it. The learned appellate Court convicted the present applicant on the

¶23

¶24

ground that in Ex.-P/5 to Ex.-P/10 and in Ex.-P/11 to Ex.-P/16 the present applicant forged signatures and put seal of Sarpanch, whereas in the documents from Ex.-P/5 to Ex.-P/17 nowhere seal of the Sarpanch is available. On Ex.-P/9 and Ex.-P/16 there are seal of Up-Sarpanch and it has not been established by the prosecution that over above seal the present applicant has not put his signature.

¶25

Considering the facts that the FIR was registered after delay of 2 years, the contents of the FIR have not been proved by the prosecution as the FIR has not been exhibited, there was enmity between the present applicant and Ganga Das (PW-1) who lodged the written complaint, therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, neither the seal nor the signature of the applicant have been proved by the prosecution in the alleged documents and neither both are available on any of the documents and most importantly the applicant was acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charges of offence under Section 419 and 420 of the IPC, hence, this criminal revision is allowed. The applicant is acquitted from the charges under Section 419 and 420 of the IPC. The impugned judgment dated 19-03-2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bemetara, is set aside. Fine amount deposited by the present applicant be refunded to him and his bail bonds stands discharged.

¶26

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey ) Judge

¶27

Aadil

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrahas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Hirendra Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balkrishna Kashyap Vs Smt. Lilavati

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kumar Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dipika Goyal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal