State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ratan Kumar Yadav & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3965 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                             NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 Acquittal Appeal No.69 of 2010

  The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate,
  Janjgir­Champa (CG)
                                          ­­­­ Appellant

                                 Versus

1. Ratan Kumar Yadav (died and deleted)
2. Sharad   Kaushik   S/o.       Goverdhan         Prasad,     Aged   about    25
  years,    Occupation       -    Business          -   Maa     Mahamaya     Agro
  Industries,       R/o.­Village             -     Tilai,      P.S.    Janjgir,
  District - Janjgir­Champa (CG)
3. Jagdish Dubey, S/o­Ganeshprasad, Aged about­ 24 years,
  Occupation - Service - Maa Mahamaya Agro Industries,
  R/o.­Village - Tilai, P.S. Janjgir, District - Janjgir­
  Champa (CG)
4. Ramkhilawan Sahu (died and deleted)
5. Khemraj Patel (died and deleted)
                                                              ­­­­ Respondents

                                  And

             Criminal Revision No.169 of 2009

  C.G. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited,
  through its District Marketing Officer, Janjgir Champa

                                                                ­­­­ Applicant

                                 Versus

1. State    of      Chhattisgarh,                through       P.S.    Janjgir,
  Distt.Janjgir Champa (CG)
2. Ratan Kumar Yadav (died and deleted)
3. Sharad   Kaushik   S/o    Govardhan            Prasad,      aged   25   years,
  occupation      Business­Maa             Mahamaya     Agro    Industry,     R/o
  village Tilai, P.S. Janjgir, Distt.Janjgir Champa (CG)
4. Jagdish Dubey, son of Ganesh Prasad, aged 24 years,
  occupation      Service,       Maa       Mahamaya     Agro    Industry,     R/o
  village Tilai, P.S. Janjgir, Distt.Janjgir Champa (CG)
                                     2

  5. Ramkhilawan Sahu (died and deleted)
  6. Khemram Patel (died and deleted)
                                                            ­­­­ Respondents

    For Appellant/State:     Mr.Sameer Oraon, G.A. in
                             Acquittal Appeal No.69/2010
    For   Respondents No.2&3:None present in
                             Acquittal Appeal No.69/2010
    For   Applicant       : Dr.N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate
                             with Ms Rashika Soni, Advocate
                             in Criminal Revision No.169/2009
    For   Respondent No.1 : Mr.Sameer Oraon, G.A. in
                             Criminal Revision No.169/2009
    For   Respondents No.3&4:None present

          Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
           Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

                         Judgment on Board
                            (23.6.2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Acquittal Appeal No.69 of 2010 filed by the

appellant/State is directed against the judgment of

acquittal dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Special Judge

constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

Janjgir­Champa in Economic Offence Case No.1/2008 by

which the respondents herein have been acquitted from

the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of

the IPC and Ramkhilawan Sahu and Khemraj Patel (died

during pendency of this appeal) were also charged for

offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter

called as 'PC Act'). Criminal Revision No.169/2009 is

directed also against the judgment of acquittal dated

17.12.2008. Since appeal and revision both are arising

out of the order dated 17.12.2008 passed in Economic

Offence Case No.1/2008, they have clubbed together,

heard together and being disposed of by this common

order.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between

15.2.2007 to 23.3.2007 from Collection Center, Janjgir

by way of forged delivery orders (Exs.P­700 to 704), at

the instance of respondents No.4 and 5, respondents

No.1 to 3 have obtained 4595.50 quintals of paddy

amounting to Rs.32,16,850/­ and thereby committed the

offences. Further case against respondents No.4 and 5

is that they have misused their official position and

thereby committed the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution

examined 32 witnesses and exhibited 710 documents

(Exs.P­1 to P­710). However, the respondents examined

none in their defence, but exhibited the documents

(Exs.D­1 to D­7) in their defence.

4. Learned Special Judge framed the following 6 points for

determination which states as under:­

"1. D;k vfHk;qDrx.k fnukad 15-02-07 ls 23-03-07 ds e/; N0x0 jkT; lgdkjh foi.ku la?k e;kZfnr tkatxhj ,oa Hk.Mkj.k dsUnz tkatxhj ls 4]595-50 fDoaVy /kku dks QthZ fMyOgjh vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij fudklh djus gsrq ijLij lgefr ds }kjk QthZ fMyOgjh vkns'k dh jpuk dj mDr QthZ fMyOgjh vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij 4595-50 fDoaVy /kku dh fudklh dj voS/k dk;Z fd, Fks ?

2. D;k vfHk;qDrx.k mDr vof/k esa d`f "k mit e.Mh laxzg.k dsUnz tkatxhj dks Ny ds }kjk 4595-50 fDoaVy /kku dks ifjnRr djus ds fy, dwVjfpr fMyOgjh vkns'k ls ifjnRr djus ds fy, csbZekuhiwoZd mDr /kku dherh 32,16,850/­ :0 dks ifjnRr djus ds fy, ewY;oku izfrHkwfr dh jpuk dj Ny fd, ?

3. D;k mDr dwVjfpr fMyOgjh vkns'k ftlds ek/;e ls Hk.Mkj.k dsUnz ls ewY;oku oLrq /kku izkIr dh tk ldrh Fkh] dh dwVjpuk

dh, ?

4. D;k vfHk;qDr mDr dwVjfpr fMyOgjh vkns'k dh dwVjpuk bl vk'k; ls fd, fd mldk Ny ds iz;kstu ls mi;ksx esa yk;k tk lds ?

5. D;k vfHk;qDr dwVjfpr fMyOgjh vkns'k dks diViwoZd vlyh ds :i esa mi;ksx es yk, vkSj ml ckjs esa ;g tkurs gq, fd mDr fMyOgjh vkns'k dwVjfpr nLrkost gS] vlyh ds :i esa mi;ksx dj Hk.Mkj.k dsUnz tkatxhj ls 4595-50 fDoaVy /kku izkIr fd, ?

6. D;k vfHk;qDr vkj0ds0lkgw ,oa [ksejkt }kjk yksd lsod dh gSfl;r ls lkSis x, dk;Z esa vius yksdlsod in dk nq:i;ksx djds vius fy, rFkk vU; O;fDr;ksa ds fy, ewY;oku oLrq /kku dh QthZ fMyOgjh vkns'k ds ek/;e ls 4595-50 fDoaVy /kku e.Mh ls fudklh dj voS/k ykHk vfHkizkIr dj vkijkf/kd vopkj dkfjr fd, ?"

5. Learned Special Judge after appreciating oral and

documentary evidence available on record, by its

judgment dated 17.12.2008, acquitted the respondents

herein from the aforesaid charges by recording the

following findings:­

(i) That, respondent No.1 had entered into agreement with marketing federation for supply of 1800 metric tone of paddy vide Exs.P­70A to 72A.

(ii) That, the prosecution has failed to prove forged delivery orders (Exs.P­700 to P­704) and further failed to prove that it was issued by signatures of respondents No.4 and 5.

(iii) That, stock register of the said collection center for the year 2006­07 has not been seized by the prosecution and it has not been proved that quantity of paddy was lifted from the said collection center.

(iv), That, it has not been proved that delivery memo was obtained by respondents No.1 to 3 pursuant to the forged delivery orders (Exs.P­700 to 704).

(v) That, the prosecution has also failed to prove

the offence beyond reasonable doubt against Ramkhilawan Sahu and Khemraj Patel for offence under Sections 13(10(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

6. Mr.Sameer Oraon, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the appellant/State, would submit that the learned

Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in acquitting

the respondents herein from the aforesaid offences

holding that offences have not been proved beyond

reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the

finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is

perverse and contrary to record and therefore, it is

liable to be set aside, however, he is not disputing

the fact that main accused Ratan Kumar Yadav, who was

director of Maa Mahamaya Agro Industries, has died

during pendency of this appeal and Ramkhilawan Sahu &

Khemraj Patel, officers of the Marketing Federation,

Janjgir Champa against whom offences under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Sections

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act have

been registered have already been died during pendency

of this appeal.

7. No one appears on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

Ramkhilawan Sahu & Khemraj Patel both have died and

their names have already been deleted / appeal against

them have already been abated.

8. Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel with Ms Rashika

Soni, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal

Revision No.169/2009, would submit that acquittal

appeal has already been preferred by the State against

the judgment of acquittal and this revision can be

treated as an additional ground in support of the said

appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment

of acquittal. Learned Senior Counsel would further

submit that main accused Ratan Kumar Yadav, who was

director of Maa Mahamaya Agro Industries and two

officers Ramkhilawan Sahu & Khemram Patel have already

died and appeal against them have been abated.

9. Mr.Sameer Oraon, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the State, would submit that the State has already

preferred acquittal appeal in which he has already

advanced his submissions.

10. We have heard learned appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­above

and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

11. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondents­

Ramkhilawan Sahu and Khemraj Patel, who were officers

of the Marketing Federation by way of forged delivery

orders (Exs.P­700 to 704) delivered 4595.50 quintals of

paddy amounting to Rs.32,16,850/­ to Ratan Kumar Yadav

and paddy was obtained on behalf of respondent No.1 by

respondents No.2 and 3 and thereby committed the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of

the IPC. Further, charge against respondents No.4 and 5

is that they have misused their official position and

thereby committed the offence by causing loss of

Rs.32,16,850/­ to the Government.

12. The Special Judge after appreciating oral and

documentary evidence available on record particularly

taking into consideration the statement of handwriting

expert N.K.Sikkewal (PW­30) held that the prosecution

has failed to prove that forged delivery orders were

issued by any of the officers including respondents

No.4 and 5 and as such, issuance of forged delivery

orders at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5 could

not be proved though Mr.Sameer Oraon, learned

Government Advocate, branded the impugned judgment as

perverse, but could not point out any illegality or

infirmity in the impugned judgment and could not point

out any piece of evidence, which indicate that finding

of the learned Special Judge that forged delivery

orders were not issued at the instance of respondents

No.4 and 5 including other respondents are perverse. As

such, the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge

holding that forged delivery orders (Exs.P­700 to 704)

could not be proved by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt particularly it could not be proved to

be issued at the instance of the respondents herein is

a finding of fact based on evidence available on

record. We do not find any perversity in that finding.

13. Learned Special Judge has also recorded that the

prosecution has failed to seize stock register of the

year 2006­07 indicating as to the extent of paddy

received in collection center, Janjgir in the year

2006­07 and how much paddy was lifted, which was

essential to determine the guilt of the respondents

herein, which the prosecution has miserably failed.

That finding could not proved to be perverse warranting

interference by this Court in limited acquittal

jurisdiction to be interfered with. As such, that

finding is also finding of fact based on evidence

available on record. Learned Special Judge has rightly

recorded the finding that even if it is held that in

delivery memo respondents No.1 to 3 have obtained paddy

under their signatures, that cannot be held that it was

obtained by forged delivery orders particularly when

respondent No.1 had already entered into agreement with

Marketing Federation for obtaining 1800 metric tone of

paddy vide Ex.P­70A to P­72A.

14. In that view of the matter, learned Special Judge has

rightly held that merely signatures have been proved to

be of respondents No.1 to 3 in delivery memo, it could

not be held that such a delivery of paddy was obtained

pursuant to the forged delivery orders. Furthermore,

respondents No.4 and 5, who were charged for offence

under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

PC Act have been held to be not found proved by the

learned Special Judge and during pendency of these

proceeding, they have died and appeal against them has

been closed having been abated. The order of the

learned Special Judge cannot be held to be illegal

warranting interference by this Court under limited

acquittal jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in

this acquittal appeal, it deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Revision No.169/2009

has also no force and accordingly, it is also

dismissed.

             Sd/­                                            Sd/­

      (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                           (Sachin Singh Rajput)
            Judge                                           Judge

B/­