Smt.Duleshwari Bai vs Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6757 Chatt

                                   1



                                                                   NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   Criminal Revision No.29 of 2012
   Smt. Duleshwari Bai, Wife of Ramanand Singh, aged about 45
     years, Caste- Gond, R/o Village Sarna, Village Panchayat Amhar,
     P.S. Patna, District- Korea, C.G.
                                                           ---- Applicant
                                Versus
  1.

Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Shivnath Jaiswal, aged about 29 years,

2. Ravishankar Jaiswal S/o Shivnath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 47 years (Both are R/o village Amhar, Police Station Patna, District- Korea, C.G.)

3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District- Korea, C.G.

---- Non-applicant

For Applicant - Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicants No.1 & 2- Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For State - Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

S.B.:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

11-11-2022 Heard.

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment passed by the

learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manendragarh,

Place- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G., in Criminal Appeal

No.73/2011 dated 09.08.2011, whereby the non-applicants No.1

and 2 acquitted from the charges under Section 419, 420/34,

421/34 of I.P.C., whereas the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G., in Criminal Case

No.813/2001 had convicted the non-applicants No.1 and 2 vide

judgment dated 29.03.2011 for the offences given below:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s. 420/34 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03-03 years and fine of Code. Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 10-10 days.

U/s. 421/34 of Indian Penal R.I. for 02-02 years. Code.

For applicant No.01

U/s.419 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03 years.

Code.

2. The non-applicants No.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal

No.73/2011 before the First Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Manendragarh, against the conviction and sentence recorded by

the learned trial Court and vide judgment dated 09.11.2011, the

learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the non-applicants for the

aforementioned offences. Against which, this Criminal Revision

has been filed by the complainant, who was then the Sarpanch of

the Gram Panchayat, Amhar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned

Sessions Court has committed illegality by acquitting the non-

applicants No.1 and 2, whereas there are ample evidence against

them. He further submits that from 1994-2000, the non-applicant

No.1 was Sarpanch, whereas non-applicant No.2 was the

Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Amhar. In the month of

February 2000, the complainant was elected as Sarpanch of the

Gram Panchayat, Amhar. It is further stated that the cheque

No.630905 dated 24.03.2000 amounting to Rs.21,737/- was

issued in favour of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Amhar but

same was received by non-applicant No.1 and it was deposited in

his private account. He further submits that the learned trial Court

had rightly convicted the non-applicants No.1 and 2. He further

submits that learned Sessions Court has committed illegality in

acquitting the non-applicants No.1 and 2 ignoring the documentary

as well as oral evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants No.1

and 2, Mr. Bharat Sharma and learned State counsel, Ms. Ruchi

Nagar submit that the learned lower appellate Court after

appreciating evidence found no material against the non-

applicants No.1 and 2 and therefore, acquitted them. There is no

illegality in the order impugned, therefore, they have prayed for

dismissal of this Criminal Revision preferred by the complainant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. From the record, it appears that written complaint was lodged by

the applicant against Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal i.e. non-applicant

No.1 alone but the F.I.R. was registered against two persons, non-

applicants No.1 and 2. Prosecution has not seized cheque which

was alleged to be issued by the department in favour of the

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Amhar. The account details of the

non-applicant No.1, deposit receipt, passbook etc. have neither

been seized nor proved by the prosecution.

7. Learned lower appellate Court has discussed all these

irregularities in the investigation. An application was moved by the

State for withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 of the

Cr.P.C. though it was rejected by the learned Court below.

8. Considering the findings recorded by the learned Court below, I do

not find any material to interfere with the findings recorded by

learned Court below or to upset the findings recorded by it.

9. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                              (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Monika                                                Judge