Raghuraj Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2022 Latest Caselaw 5102 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 4


                                                                    NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRR No. 180 of 2007

    Raghuraj Singh, S/o Late Satish Chand Singh, Aged About 54
     Years, R/o- M.B. 10 Padum Nagar, Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.).

                                                         ---- Applicant

                               Versus

    Central Bureau of Investigation Jabalpur, District- Jabalpur

                                                    ---- Non-Applicant


     For Applicant              : Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate


             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                           Order on Board
10.08.2022

1) Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel who normally appears for CBI is present and he has been asked to assist the Court.

2) This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short 'Cr.P.C.') against the Special Criminal Case No. 06/2001 decided on 27.09.2006 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Raipur and affirmed by the Special Judge/CBI, Raipur passed in Special Criminal Appeal No. 239/2006 on 10.04.2007.

3) That the applicant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') inter-alia on the ground that the complainant B. S. Rao and applicant Raghuraj Singh were working in Bhilai Steel Plant as Electric Fitter in Coke Oven Section. The allegation is that the present applicant impersonated the complainant and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 8,120/- from CTD accounts of the complainant. Written complaint was made by the complainant on 02/11/1984 and on the basis of such complaint matter was

investigation and the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC were registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.

4) The learned trial Court framed charges for above mentioned offences. The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non guilty. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 37 documents. The statement of a applicant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and going through the documents annexed therein, convicted the applicant under Section 420 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine further RI for 2 months and for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC RI for 3 years and in default of fine further RI for 2 months.

5) The applicant preferred appeal against the judgment dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Raipur before the Special Judge (CBI), Raipur and challenged the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2007 affirmed the conviction & sentence and dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the lower appellate Court in this Criminal Revision.

6) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that written complaint was made by the complainant B.S. Rao but he did not appear in the witness box and his evidence has not been recorded, therefore, allegations made in written complainant and FIR cannot be established against the applicant. He further submits that offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of IPC have not been proved as the ingredients of these Sections are missing. His next contention is that trial Court erred in law by relying upon hand writing expert opinion without his examination in the Court. Signature of the hand writing expert has been proved by some other person else which is not admissible in the law.

7) On the other hand, learned non-applicant submits that the substance of the deposition of the complainant B.S. Rao has been proved by adducing the evidence of other witnesses and by producing documents. He further submits that documents produced by the prosecution proved the guilt of the applicant.

8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is not in dispute that the applicant and the complainant B.S. Rao were working in Bhilai Steel Plant in the year 1983 on the post of Electric Fitters and they were known to each-other. It is also not in dispute that the employees of Bhilai Steel Plant were running saving accounts in the Post Office. The complainant was holding two accounts i.e. C.T.D 210061 and CTD 228536 and he was depositing Rs. 100-150/- per month in both the accounts. The witness PW/1 K.R. Dewangan, PW/ T. R. Gadriya and PW/4 R.C. Shriwas have stated in their evidence that the complainant was running account in the Post Office. They also admitted that withdrawal form i.e. Ex.P/1 contains signature of Assistant Post Master and clerk by which Rs. 4,550/- was withdrawn. Withdrawal of the amount was maintained in the concerned account register. Witness PW/8 B.P. Bagchi who was posted in the post of Inspector in the CBI Jabalpur registered FIR (Ex.P/31) on 14.03.1985. The police during investigation seized various documents, sample signature of the applicant was taken and the same was sent to hand writing expert and the hand writing expert submitted report that the writing on the withdrawal form matches with the writing of the present applicant.

9) It is worthy to mention here that hand writing expert has not been examined and his singature on the report has been proved by the one SC Gupta (PW/7). He has stated in para-7 of cross- examination that he would not reply regarding documents. He has stated in para-8 in some documents there are signatures of one Kallol Basak.

10) The allegations of cheating has not been proved by the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as none of the witnesses have made statement that withdrawal form was submitted by the present applicant. The complainant B.S. Rao did not appear in the witness box and has not stated a single word against the present applicant, therefore, the allegations made in written complaint FIR have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. With regard to Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, it has not been established by the prosecution that the withdrawal form contains forged signature of the present applicant. The hand writing Expert who examined the handwriting samples, has not been examined in the Court. Thus, the contents of the report of the handwriting expert have not been proved. Mere certification of the signatures of a person does not prove the person guilty of certain offence.

11) The prosecution could not prove the charged offences against the present applicant beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant is acquitted from the charges of Sections 420, 468 & 471 of IPC giving him benefit of doubt. The instant Criminal Revision is allowed.

12) The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 437 (A) of CrPC.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim