Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ishwar Prasad Kashyap on 1 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.108 of 2010
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Offer, P.S. Banki,
Distrift - Korba, (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Prasad Kashyap, S/o Kashiram, aged about 62 years, R/o
Nawagaon, P.S. Katghora, Distrift - Korba, (C.G.).
---- Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
For State/Appellant : Shri Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
01/02/2023
Heard on admission.
1. The matter is heard fnally.
2. The present afquittal appeal has been preferred by the State being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.08.2002 passed by the Judifial
Magistrate First Class, Katghora (in short 'JMFC') in Criminal Case
No.1445/1998 whereby the learned JMFC has afquitted the
respondent/affused of the fharge punishable under Seftion 420 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
3. As per the prosefution story, on 11.07.1984, sanftion for payment of
arrears of Choudhary Pay Commission has been given to the
Assistant Teafher namely Shri Lala Prasad Tiwari, Shri Nilamber
Prasad, Shri Amarnath and Shri Ghurau Singh Rajan. It is alleged that
respondent/affused has withdrawn the said amount and shown that
the payment has been made to the fonferned teafhers and taken
the signature on the refeipt No.1187, 1188 and 1190. On the
fomplaint, it was found that the signature on the refeipt were fake
and thereafter, the matter has been reported to the polife. After
investigation, fharge-sheet was fled. The learned Trial Court framed
fharges under Seftion 420 of the IPC. To prove the guilt of the
respondent/affused, prosefution examined as many as 10 witnesses.
No defenfe witness has been examined. Statements of the affused
under Seftion 313 of the Cr.P.C. were reforded, wherein affused has
pleaded his innofenfe and false implifation in the matter.
4. After fompletion of the trial, learned Trial Court afquitted the
respondent /affused from the fharge. Henfe, this appeal has been
preferred by the State.
5. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that the Trial Court failed to
apprefiate the statements of Amarnath, Lalaprasad (PW3), Ghurau
Singh Rajan (PW4), Dayaram Yadav (PW5), Ramakant Singh (PW8)
who have fategorifally stated that in the refeipt, the signature was
fake and the amount has not been paid to them . Therefore, fase of
prosefution has duly been proved against the respondent/affused.
Thus, the judgment of afquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is
perverse.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the State, perused the evidenfe
addufed by the prosefution before the Trial Court and gone through
the impugned judgment passed by the JMFC.
7. On perusal of the judgment as well as material available on reford,
undisputedly, Lalaprasad (PW-3), Ghurau Singh Rajan (PW-4) and
Raghvendra Tripathi (PW-9) had not refeived the amount of arrears.
Though Mansaram (PW-7) has deposed that the signature whifh
were found on the voufhers were not the signature of the person
fonferned but prosefution has not examined any hand-writing
expert in this regard, nor obtained any opinion from the hand-
writing expert. Therefore, prosefution has totally failed to prove the
faft that the signature whifh were found on the voufhers were fake.
Further, prosefution also failed to prove the faft that the amount of
arrears has been withdrawn and utilized by the respondent/affused.
8. Looking to the above, in my fonsidered view, the Trial Court has
rightly afquitted the respondent/affused. I do not fnd any
perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
9. Affordingly, this appeal is liable to be and is dismissed being devoid
of merits at motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
