Satya Prakash Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Satya Prakash Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of without interfering with the appellate court's 'questioned decision' dated 22/02/2022, which stands upheld; with directions to the trial court and the police (monthly dates for prosecution witnesses; process through IG Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur; trial preferably within 05 months; compliance reports to the Registrar General and the DGP, Raipur) to secure production of prosecution witnesses and an expeditious trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate court's 'questioned decision' dated 22/02/2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2020 — remanding the case to the trial court with direction to afford the prosecution an adequate opportunity to produce its witnesses — calls for any interference in this revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC. +1 more

Court's answer

No illegality or irregularity of any kind is apparent in the 'questioned decision', nor is there any justification for setting it aside; hence the revision petition merited no interference.

Ratio / Principle

On the established facts — the accused being a police employee, the investigation and the offence relating to the police, and the witnesses being police, bank and treasury officials — the responsibility to produce the prosecution witnesses and to secure their attendance (summons, bailable warrants and coercive warrants) rested on the prosecution, i.e., the police/State; the process had in fact been issued by the police.

Key takeaways

After about 28 opportunities, with summons, bailable warrants and coercive warrants, not a single prosecution witness was produced or examined; directing a further opportunity at that stage was appropriate, since otherwise a question mark would arise on the functioning of the police; the appellate court's remand direction was therefore justified (several witnesses being senior/retired police officers who must obtain prior permission of their superiors to appear).ratio¶¶44
For a swift and effective trial, directions were issued: the trial court to fix at least one date every month for prosecution witnesses and to issue summonses/bailable warrants at the outset through the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, on whom responsibility for service of process and production of witnesses lies; the State to extend full cooperation; the trial to be completed preferably within 05 months; copies of the order to the IG Police (Surguja Range, Ambikapur) and the DGP, Raipur, the latter to ensure necessary departmental action against those responsible after the trial.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 323 of 2022 — Satya Prakash Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (decided 16-03-2026, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.). Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC by the acquitted accused against the appellate court's 'questioned decision' dated 22-02-2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2020 (State v. Satya Prakash Bhagat), whereby the State's appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the trial court to enable the prosecution to produce its witnesses. Facts: the accused, a constable from 2008 and later assistant clerk in the finance branch of the SP Surguja's office, allegedly manipulated e-payment entries crediting Rs. 26,40,870/- in all (naxal allowance 1,610→16,100; special ration money 650→6,50,000 on three occasions; Rs. 6,64,192/- into an account bearing his father Dayaram Bhagat's account number); Crime No. 91/2014, PS Ambikapur; charges under Sections 420/409 IPC framed 09-03-2016; despite about 28 opportunities, summons, bailable and coercive warrants, not one prosecution witness appeared, and the accused was acquitted on 17-01-2020. Held, relying on Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 787: the accused, the investigation, the offence and the witnesses all pertain to the police, so the duty to produce witnesses lay on the prosecution; a further opportunity after 28 failures would cast a question mark on police functioning; the remand direction was appropriate and the questioned decision contained no illegality or irregularity. Revision disposed of with directions: monthly dates for prosecution witnesses, summonses/warrants from the outset through the IG of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur (responsible for service and production of witnesses), State cooperation, trial to conclude preferably within five months, and compliance reports to the Registrar General and the DGP, Raipur (departmental action after trial).

1 / 8

2026:CGHC:12511

पत ्र ि �व�द े

, छत ्ती �सगढ ़ उच ् च न ् य ा �य ा �लय त ि �ल�सप ु �र

द ा �ण ्डि ��क प ु �नर�क ्ष ण क ्र म ां �$क-323/2022

सत्या प्रक�श भग� तिपु��-दाया�र�मां भग�, उम्र-लगभग 35 वेर्ष0, तिनवे�स�-जमांरग�ड़ी�, पु�लिलस था�न�-��ग�हा�र, लिजल�-जशपु�र, छत्ती�सगढ़

-----प ु �नर�क ्ष णक��0/अत ि भय ा �क

त ि वर े ू द

छत्ती�सगढ़ र�ज्या, द्वा�र� लिजल� दा��लि<क�र�, अ$ति�क�पु�र, लिजल�-सरग�ज�, छत्ती�सगढ़

-----अन�व�द े क/र�ज ा ् य

पु�नर�क्षणक��0/अतिभया�क्त द्वा�र� : श्री� ��०एन० प्रज�पुति�, अलि<वेक्त� । अन�वे�दाक/र�ज्या द्वा�र� : श्री� स�तिमां� लिस$हा, उपुमांहा�लि<वेक्त� ।

न ् य ा �यम ा ां Bत ि �0 श ्री � स$जय क�म ा ां �र ज�यसव ा े �ल

!! आद�श प ा ु �ठ प ु र प ु �र ि र� !!

16/03/2026

<�र� 397/401 दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� अ$�ग0� प्रस्� � इस पु�नर�क्षण या�तिचक� मांN,

अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया—पु$चमां अपुर सत्र न्या�या�<�श, अ$ति�क�पु�र, लिजल� सरग�ज� (छत्ती�सगढ़)

Digitally
signed by
POMAN
POMAN DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2026.03.17
17:10:19
+0530

2 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

द्वा�र� आपुर�लि<क अपु�ल क्रमां�$क 72/2020, “छत्ती�सगढ़ र�ज्या तिवेरुद्ध सत्या प्रक�श भग�” मांN पु�रिर� तिनण0या तिदान�$क 22/02/2022 कW च�नX�� दा� गई हाZ । आग� लिजस� “ प्रश्न�<�न तिनण0या ” स� स$�Wलि<� तिकया� ज� रहा� हाZ ।

प्रकरण क� �थ्या, स$क्ष�पु मांN, इस प्रक�र हा] तिक या�तिचक�क��0/अतिभया�क्त सत्या प्रक�श भग� पु�लिलस तिवेभ�ग मांN वेर्ष0 2008 मांN आरक्षक क� पुदा पुर भ�_ हा`आ । वेर्ष0 2010 स� वेहा क�या�0लया पु�लिलस अ<�क्षक, सरग�ज� कa वे � न श�खा� मांN वे � न क्लक0 क� सहा�याक क� रूपु मांN क�या0र� था� �था� कम्प्याBटर क� मां�ध्यामां स� समांस्� अलि<क�रिरयाh-कमां0च�रिरयाh क� वे � न दा�याक �Zया�र कर कWर्ष�लया स� ई-पु�मांNट क� मां�ध्यामां स� उनक� �]क खा��h मांN र�तिश अ$�रिर� कर�� था� । अतिभया�क्त सत्या प्रक�श भग� द्वा�र� मां�हा जBन 2011 मांN अपुन� नक्सल� भत्ती� कa र�तिश 1,610/- रुपुया� क� स्था�न पुर 16,100/- रुपुया�, �था� मां�हा जBन 2012 मांN भ� 1,610/रुपुया� क� स्था�न पुर 16,100/- रुपुया� अपुन� �]क खा�� मांN अ$�रिर� कर�ई गई । इस� प्रक�र मां�हा फरवेर� 2013 मांN स्पु�शल र�शनमांन� 650/- रुपुया� क� स्था�न पुर 6,50,000/रुपुया�, मां�हा जनवेर� 2013 मांN 650/- रुपुया� क� स्था�न पुर 6,50,000/- रुपुया� �था� मां�हा जनवेर� 2014 मांN स्पु�शल र�शनमांन� 650/- रुपुया� क� स्था�न पुर 6,50,000/रुपुया� अ$�रिर� करवे�या� गया� । इस� प्रक�र मां�हा तिदासम्�र 2013 मांN आरक्षक स�न�ल क�मां�र क� �]क खा��, जW मांBल�j अतिभया�क्त सत्या प्रक�श भग� क� तिपु�� दाया�र�मां भग� क� खा�� क्रमां�$क था�, उसमांN 6,64,192/- रुपुया� अ$�रिर� कर�ए गए । इस प्रक�र अतिभया�क्त द्वा�र� क�ल 26,40,870/- रुपुया� कa श�सकaया र�तिश ग�न कर प्र�प्त तिकया� गया� । उक्त तिशक�या� पुर था�न� अ$ति�क�पु�र मांN अपुर�< क्रमां�$क 91/2014 पु$ज��द्ध तिकया� गया� �था� तिवेवे�चन� उपुर�$� अतिभयाWगपुत्र प्रस्� � तिकया� गया� ।

3 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया—न्या�तियाक मांलिजस्टl�ट प्रथामां श्री�ण�, अ$ति�क�पु�र, लिजल� सरग�ज� (छत्ती�सगढ़) मांN अतिभयाWगपुत्र प्रस्� � हाWन� क� पुश्च�� प्रकरण ल$�� समांया �क आरWपु-पुBवे0 �क0 हा � � तिनया� रहा� । तिदान�$क 09/03/2016 कW अतिभया�क्त क� तिवेरुद्ध <�र� 420 एवे$ 409 भ�र��या दा�� स$तिहा�� क� अ$�ग0� आरWपु तिवेरतिच� तिकए गए �था� प्रकरण अतिभयाWजन स�क्ष्या हा � � ल$ति�� रहा� । स�तिक्षयाh क� न�मां आदा�तिशक�एn ज�र� कa ज�� रहाo, तिक$ �� एक भ� स�क्ष� क� पुर�क्षण नहाo हाW सक� । अलि<क�$श ण्डिस्थाति�याh मांN स�तिक्षयाh क� न�मां ज�र� आदा�तिशक�एn अदामां��मां�ल रहाo । इस मांध्या स�तिक्षयाh कW समांन क� अति�रिरक्त जमां�न��या वे�र$ट �था� क�छ अवेसरh पुर तिगरफ्��र� वे�र$ट भ� ज�र� तिकए गए, तिक$ �� अ$��j एक भ� स�क्ष� क� पुर�क्षण नहाo हाW सक� । पुरिरण�मांस्वेरूपु तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया न� अतिभयाWजन कa रुतिच न पु�� हाए स�क्ष्या क� अवेसर समां�प्त कर तिदाया� । अतिभयाWजन स�क्ष्या क� अभ�वे मांN अ$ति�मां �क0 स�नन� क� पुश्च�� तिदान�$क 17/01/2020 कW तिनण0या पु�रिर� कर�� हाए अतिभया�क्त कW दाWर्षमां�क्त कर तिदाया� ।

उक्त दाWर्षमां�तिक्त आदा�श कW र�ज्या द्वा�र� अपु�ल मांN च�नX�� दा� गई । अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया— पु$चमां अपुर सत्र न्या�या�<�श, अ$ति�क�पु�र, सरग�ज� न� “ प्रश्न�<�न तिनण0या ” क� मां�ध्यामां स� याहा पु�या� तिक अतिभया�क्त द्वा�र� श�सकaया स�वेक क� रूपु मांN श�सन क� स�था छल एवे$ आपुर�लि<क न्या�स-भ$ग तिकया� गया� हाZ, जW ग$भ�र प्रकq ति� क� अपुर�< हाZ जW क्रमांशj 07 एवे$ 10 वेर्ष0 क� क�र�वे�स स� दा��न�या हाZ । प्रकरण क� सभ� स�क्ष� पु�लिलस तिवेभ�ग, �]क एवे$ कWर्ष�लया स� स$�$लि<� श�सकaया स�वेक हा] �था� अतिभया�क्त भ� पु�लिलस तिवेभ�ग मांN क�या0र� रहा� हाZ । इसक� ��वेजBदा अतिभयाWजन स�क्ष्या प्रस्� � नहाo तिकया� गया� । अ�j अतिभयाWजन कW स�क्ष्या प्रस्� � करन� क� अवेसर तिदाया� ज�न� उतिच� पु�� हाए प्रकरण, तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया कW इस तिनदाrश क� स�था पु�नj प्र�तिर्ष� तिकया� गया� तिक अतिभयाWजन कW स�क्ष्या क� पुया�0प्त अवेसर प्रदा�न कर�� हाए

4 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

�था� स�तिक्षयाh कa उपुण्डिस्थाति� स�तिनण्डिश्च� कर प्रकरण क� तिवेलि<वे� तिनर�करण तिकया� ज�ए । लिजस आदा�श कW इस पु�नर�क्षण मांN च�नX�� दा� गई हाZ ।

पु�नर�क्षणक��0/अतिभया�क्त क� तिवेद्वा�न अलि<वेक्त� क� �क0 हाZ तिक तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया मांN अतिभयाWजन कW स�क्ष्या प्रस्� � करन� हा � � लगभग 28 अवेसर प्रदा�न तिकए गए, लिजस दाXर�न स�तिक्षयाh कW समांन, जमां�न��या वे�र$ट एवे$ तिगरफ्��र� वे�र$ट भ� ज�र� तिकए गए, तिफर भ� अतिभयाWजन एक भ� स�क्ष� प्रस्� � करन� मांN असफल रहा� । तिवेच�रण कa अवेलि< अतिनण्डिश्च�क�ल �क नहाo चल सक�� । तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� अतिभयाWजन कW पुया�0प्त अवेसर प्रदा�न तिकया� ज� च�क� था�, अ�j अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� पु�नj अवेसर प्रदा�न तिकया� ज�न� तिवेलि<सम्मां� नहाo हाZ । इसलिलए पु�नर�क्षण स्वे�क�र कर “ प्रश्न�<�न तिनण0या ” कW अपु�स्� तिकया� ज�ए ।

र�ज्या पुक्ष क� तिवेद्वा�न अलि<वेक्त� क� �क0 हाZ तिक याहा मां�मांल� एक श�सकaया स�वेक द्वा�र� श�सन क� स�था छल एवे$ आपुर�लि<क न्या�स-भ$ग करन� स� स$�$लि<� हाZ, लिजसमांN स�क्ष� भ� श�सकaया कमां0च�र� हा] । तिवेवे�चन� भ� पु�लिलस द्वा�र� कa गई हाZ �था� स�तिक्षयाh कW �ल� करन� कa लिजम्मां�दा�र� भ� अतिभयाWजन पुक्ष पुर हा� हाW�� हाZ । इस मां�मांल� मांN ��र-��र समांन, जमां�न��या वे�र$ट एवे$ तिगरफ्��र� वे�र$ट ज�र� तिकए गए, तिफर भ� उनकa उपुण्डिस्थाति� स�तिनण्डिश्च� नहाo हाW सकa । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांN अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� प्रकरण तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया कW पु�नj प्र�तिर्ष� कर अतिभयाWजन कW स�क्ष्या प्रस्� � करन� क� अवेसर प्रदा�न तिकया� ज�न� पुBण0�j उतिच� हाZ। तिवेद्वा�न अलि<वेक्त� द्वा�र� अपुन� �क0 क� समांथा0न मांN न्या�यादृष्टां�$� Bablu Kumar and others

v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 क� हावे�ल� तिदाया� हाZ ।

5 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

उभयापुक्ष क� �क0 श्रीवेण तिकया� गया� �था� अतिभल�खा क� पुरिरश�लन तिकया� गया� ।

मां�नन�या उच्च�मां न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� ��लB क�म ां �र (प ु Bव े vक) ्त मांN प्रति�पु�तिदा� तिकया� गया� हाZ तिक न्या�या�लया तिवेच�रण क� दाXर�न क�वेल एक मांXन दाश0क अथावे� तिनण्डिwक्रया पुया0वे�क्षक नहाo रहा सक��, अतिपु�� उसक� याहा तिवेलि<क दा�तियात्वे हाZ तिक वेहा याहा स�तिनण्डिश्च� कर� तिक न �W अतिभयाWजन पुक्ष और न हा� अतिभया�क्त आपुर�लि<क तिवेच�रण क� स�था कWई ट�लमांटWल, छल अथावे� अन�तिच� आचरण करN �था� न्या�तियाक क�या0वे�हा� कa पुतिवेत्र�� एवे$ गरिरमां� अक्ष � ण �न� रहा� । न्या�या�लया कW सतिक्रया भBतिमांक� तिनभ�� हा`ए तिनwपुक्ष, प्रभ�वे� एवे$ तिवेलि<सम्मां� तिवेच�रण स�तिनण्डिश्च� करन� हाW�� हाZ, जW तिक भ�र��या स�क्ष्या अलि<तिनयामां, 1872 क� लिसद्ध�$�h क� अन�रूपु उसक� दा�तियात्वे हाZ । उक्त तिनण0या कa कण्डि��क�-22 तिनम्न�न�स�र हाZj—

“22. Keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. The law does not countenance a “mock trial”. It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. The court is under the

6 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

legal obligation to see that the witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution are produced by it or if summons are issued, they are actually served on the witnesses. If the court is of the opinion that the material witnesses have not been examined, it should not allow the prosecution to close the evidence. There can be no doubt that the prosecution may not examine all the material witnesses but that does not necessarily mean that the prosecution can choose not to examine any witness and convey to the court that it does not intend to cite the witnesses. The Public Prosecutor who conducts the trial has a statutory duty to perform. He cannot afford to take things in a light manner. The court also is not expected to accept the version of the prosecution as if it is sacred. It has to apply its mind on every occasion. Non-application of mind by the trial court has the potentiality to lead to the paralysis of the conception of fair trial. ”

उपुरWक्त न्या�यादृष्टां�$� क� प्रक�श मांN तिवेच�र�<�न मां�मांल� पुर तिवेच�र करN �W याहा स्पुष्टां हाZ तिक इस मां�मांल� मांN अतिभया�क्त पु�लिलस कमां_ हाZ, तिवेवे�चन� भ� पु�लिलस द्वा�र� कa ज�� हाZ, कलिथा� छल, ग�न एवे$ आपुर�लि<क न्या�स-भ$ग कa घटन� भ� पु�लिलस क�या�0लया स� स$�$लि<� हाZ, स�क्ष� भ� पु�लिलस, �]क एवे$ कWर्ष�लया क� कमां0च�र� हा] । तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया क� समांक्ष स�तिक्षयाh कW उपुण्डिस्था� कर�न� कa लिजम्मां�दा�र� अतिभयाWजन अथा�0� पु�लिलस पुर हाW�� हाZ �था� समांन, जमां�न��या वे�र$ट एवे$ तिगरफ्��र� वे�र$ट कa ��मां�ल भ� पु�लिलस द्वा�र� हा� स�तिनण्डिश्च� कa ज�� हाZ । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांN 28 अवेसर तिदाए ज�न� क� पुश्च�� एक भ� स�क्ष� क� न्या�या�लया मांN

पुर�क्षण न� कर� पु�न� पु�लिलस कa क�या0प्रण�ल� पुर प्रश्नतिचन्हा लग�न� वे�ल� हाZ । उपुया�0क्त पुरिरण्डिस्थाति�याh मांN अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� प्रकरण कW पु�नj तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया कW प्र�तिर्ष� कर

7 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

अतिभयाWजन कW स�क्ष्या क� अवेसर प्रदा�न करन� क� तिनदाrश दा�न� तिवेलि<सम्मां� हाZ । “ प्रश्न�<�न तिनण0या ” मांN तिकस� प्रक�र कa अवेZ<�� या� अश�द्ध�� पुरिरलतिक्ष� नहाo हाW�� । अ�j उसमांN हास्�क्ष�पु करन� क� कWई औतिचत्या नहाo हाZ ।

उल्ले�खान�या हाZ तिक तिवेच�रण�या घटन� वेर्ष0 2011-12 कa हाZ । अतिभयाWजन क� अलि<क�$श स�क्ष� श�सकaया अलि<क�र�/कमां0च�र� हा] । इ�न� ल$�� समांया व्या�� हाW ज�न� क� क�रण उन श�सकaया कतिमां0याh कa पुदास्था�पुन�एn पुरिरवेति�0� हाW च�कa हाhग� �था� उन्हाN न्या�या�लया मांN स�क्ष्या हा � � उपुण्डिस्था� हाWन� स� पुBवे0 अपुन� वेरिरष्ठ अलि<क�र� स� अन�मांति� प्र�प्त करन� हाW�� हाZ । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांN, तिवेच�रण�या अपुर�< कa प्रकq ति� कW दृतिष्टांग� रखा�� हा`ए अतिभयाWजन स�तिक्षयाh कa उपुण्डिस्थाति� स�तिनण्डिश्च� करन� हा � � याहा दा�तियात्वे तिकस� वेरिरष्ठ अलि<क�र� कW स}पु� ज�न� न्या�यास$ग� एवे$ आवेश्याक प्र�� हाW�� हाZ, लिजसस� पुBवे0 कa �रहा अतिभयाWजन एवे$ पु�लिलस प्रश�सन कa ओर स� स�क्ष्या प्रस्� � करन� मांN कWई अरुतिच या� ल�पुरवे�हा� न �र�� ज� सक� । अ�j प्रकरण क� श�घ्र एवे$ प्रभ�वे� तिवेच�रण कa दृतिष्टां स� तिनम्न�न�स�र तिनदाrश तिदाए ज�� हा]—

i . तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� प्रत्या�क मां�हा कमां स� कमां दाW ति�लिथाया�n अतिभयाWजन स�क्ष्या हा � � तिनया� कa ज�एnग� । स�तिक्षयाh क� न�मां प्र�र$भ मांN हा� समां$स कa �ज�ए जमां�न�� वे�र$ट ज�र� तिकया� ज�ए$ । आदा�तिशक�ए$ पु�लिलस मांहा�तिनर�क्षक, सरग�ज� रNज, अ$ति�क�पु�र क� मां�ध्यामां स� हा� ज�र� तिकया� ज�ए$ ।

ii . तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया स� स�तिक्षयाh क� न�मां ज�र� आदा�तिशक�ओ$ कa ��मां�ल� �था� स�तिक्षयाh क� उपुण्डिस्थाति� कa ति€म्मां�दा�र� पु�लिलस मांहा�तिनर�क्षक, सरग�ज� रNज, अ$ति�क�पु�र कa हाWग� ।

iii . �च�वे पुक्ष द्वा�र� श�घ्र तिवेच�रण मांN पुBण0 सहायाWग तिकया� ज�या� ।

iv . तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया स� अपु�क्ष� कa ज�� हाZ तिक प्रकरण क� तिवेच�रण याथा�स$भवे 05 मां�हा कa अवेलि< क� भ��र पुBण0 तिकया� ज�ए ।

8 / 8

(Cr. R. No.-323 of 2022)

आदा�श कa प्रति�लिलतिपु पु�लन�था0 पु�लिलस मांहा�तिनर�क्षक, सरग�ज� रNज, अ$ति�क�पु�र कW प्र�तिर्ष� हाW ।

आदा�श कa प्रति�लिलतिपु पु�लिलस मांहा�तिनदा�शक, र�यापु�र, छत्ती�सगढ़ कW इस अपु�क्ष� क� स�था प्र�तिर्ष� हाW तिक तिवेच�र पुश्च��, आवेश्याक�� अन�स�र उतिच� क�या0वे�हा� कa ज�वेN ।

तिवेच�रण क� स्थागन �� पुBवे0 मांN ज�र� आदा�श समां�प्त तिकया� ज�� हाZ ।

उपुरWक्त�न�स�र तिनदाrश क� स�था, इस पु�नर�क्षण या�तिचक� क� तिनर�करण तिकया� ज�� हाZ ।

रलिजस्टl� कW तिनदाrतिश� तिकया� ज�� हाZ तिक इस आदा�श कa प्रति� याथा�श�घ्र तिवेच�रण न्या�या�लया एवे$ अपु�ल�या न्या�या�लया कW पु�लन�था0 एवे$ सBचन�था0 प्र�तिर्ष� तिकया� ज�ए ।

सहा�/(स$जय क�म ा ां �र ज�यसव ा े �ल) न ् य ा �य ा �<�श

पुWमांन

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
'Questioned decision' dated 22/02/2022 rendered by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2020 ('State of Chhattisgarh vs Satya Prakash Bhagat'), allowing the State's appeal against the acquittal and remanding the case to the trial court to afford the prosecution an adequate opportunity to produce its witnesses and to decide the case after evaluating the availability of witnesses.¶¶20
Appellate Court — Sessions Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh · 22/02/2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/accused Satya Prakash Bhagat joined the police department as a constable in 2008; from 2010 he worked as assistant clerk in the finance branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, preparing consolidated pay liabilities of officers/staff and transferring salaries through e-payment.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Alleged manipulations through altered computer/e-payment entries: the accused's naxal allowance of Rs. 1,610/- was raised to Rs. 16,100/- (June 2011 and June 2012); special ration money of Rs. 650/- was raised to Rs. 6,50,000/- (January 2013, February 2013 and January 2014); and Rs. 6,64,192/- was credited in December 2013 to the account of Constable Sunil Kumar, which in fact bore the account number of the accused's father Dayaram Bhagat — a total of Rs. 26,40,870/-.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
On complaint, Crime No. 91/2014 was registered at Police Station Ambikapur and, after investigation, a chargesheet was filed.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
By order dated 09/03/2016 the trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja) framed charges against the accused under Sections 420 and 409 IPC; the case proceeded as a State case.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Despite repeated issuance of summons, bailable warrants and coercive warrants against the prosecution witnesses — some served at wrong addresses — not a single witness could be produced or examined; the trial court accordingly closed the prosecution evidence.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
For want of prosecution evidence, the trial court, after recording the accused's statement under questioning, acquitted the accused by judgment dated 17/01/2020.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The State appealed. By the 'questioned decision' the appellate court held that the accused, as a government servant, had committed fraud and criminal breach of trust — a grave offence punishable with 7 to 10 years' imprisonment — that the evidence pertained to police, bank and treasury records and the accused was himself a police employee, yet no prosecution witness had been produced; it therefore remanded the case to the trial court with direction to give the prosecution adequate opportunity to produce its witnesses and to decide the case after evaluating the availability of witnesses.¶¶25

Cite this judgement

Satya Prakash Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR/323/2022 (CG), decided on 15 March 2026.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶¶31

Open Authorities

Statutes3

दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)397, 401
भारतीय दण्ड संहिता, 1860 (Indian Penal Code, 1860)420, 409
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872)भरया सक्ष्या अलि<तिनयामां, 1872

View all statutes

Procedural history8

'Questioned decision' dated 22/02/2022 rendered by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2020 ('State of Chhattisgarh vs Satya Prakash Bhagat'), allowing the State's appeal against the acquittal and remanding the case to the trial court to afford the prosecution an adequate opportunity to produce its witnesses and to decide the case after evaluating the availability of witnesses.Appellate Court — Sessions Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh · 22/02/2022
Petitioner/accused Satya Prakash Bhagat joined the police department as a constable in 2008; from 2010 he worked as assistant clerk in the finance branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, preparing consolidated pay liabilities of officers/staff and transferring salaries through e-payment.
Alleged manipulations through altered computer/e-payment entries: the accused's naxal allowance of Rs. 1,610/- was raised to Rs. 16,100/- (June 2011 and June 2012); special ration money of Rs. 650/- was raised to Rs. 6,50,000/- (January 2013, February 2013 and January 2014); and Rs. 6,64,192/- was credited in December 2013 to the account of Constable Sunil Kumar, which in fact bore the account number of the accused's father Dayaram Bhagat — a total of Rs. 26,40,870/-.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Parties & counsel