State Of Chhattisgarh vs B.K. Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 744 Chatt

                                                                      NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Acquittal Appeal No.392 of 2010

         State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Dantewara
             (South Bastar), District - Dantewara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

         B.K. Sharma, Ex-Naib Nazir, Civil Court (presently under
             suspension), Dantewara, District - Dantewara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Respondent

__________________________________________________________________

For State/Appellant : Shri Samir Oraon, Govt. Advocate.

     For Respondent                  : None.


                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
                              Order on Board

06/02/2023

1. The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Dantewara, Chhattisgarh, (in short 'JMFC') in

Criminal Case No.722/2003 whereby the learned JMFC has acquitted

the respondent/accused of the charge punishable under Sections

409 & 408 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

2. As per the prosecution story, at the relevant point of time,

respondent/accused was posted as Naib Nazir in the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dantewara. In addition to the said post, he was also holding the charge of Malkhana. It is alleged that being a Naib

Nazir and Malkhana Incharge, respondent/accused was entrusted

with the property of Malkhana and he dishonestly misappropriated

the property of Malkhana i.e. tape recorder amounting to Rs.2,200/-,

case of Rs.760/- & Rs.6,000/- and a pair of golden khinwa. Thereafter,

in this regard, a written report was made by Devesh Kumar Goyal,

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. On the basis of

the said report, ofence was registered. After completion of the

investigation, charge-sheet was fled. To prove the guilt of the

respondent/accused, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.

No defence witness has been examined. Statements of the accused

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein accused has

pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After completion of the trial, learned Trial Court vide judgment

dated 30.11.2004 acquitted the respondent/accused from the

charge under Sections 409 & 408 of the IPC. Hence, this appeal has

been preferred by the State against the acquittal.

4. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that prosecution has duly

proved that the respondent/accused had handed-over the charge of

Malkhana to Ramesh Kumar and subsequently to Suresh Kumar but

he did not handed-over the alleged articles i.e. tape recorder, cash of

Rs.760/- & Rs.6,000/- and a pair of golden khinwa. From the evidence,

it is clear that the aforesaid articles were not handed-over to the

successor Naib Nazir by the respondent/accused and the Trial Court

has not properly appreciated this fact adduced by the prosecution and acquitted the respondent/accused.

5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent/accused.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the State, perused the evidence

adduced by the prosecution 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 record,

undisputedly, at the relevant point of time, respondent/accused was

posted at Civil Court, Dantewara as Naib Nazir and he was also the

Incharge of Malkhana. It is alleged that the respondent/accused

while handling over the charge to the subsequent Naib Nazir, did not

hand-over the articles i.e. tape recorder worth Rs.2,200/-, cash of

Rs.760/- & Rs.6,000/- and a pair of golden Khinwa and

misappropriated the above stated property. There is no evidence

available on record which shows that the said entrusted property

were ever demanded from the respondent/accused by the Presiding

Officer/Department. There is also no material available on record

which shows that respondent/accused had ever refused to hand-

over the said articles/property to Presiding Officer/Department.

Therefore, in the present case, prosecution has totally failed to

prove that respondent/accused has misappropriated the entrusted

property or dishonestly used or disposed the said property.

8. Thus, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the

respondent/accused from the charges under Sections 408 & 409 of

the IPC. I do not fnd any perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be and is dismissed being devoid

of merits.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Prakash