Kailash Agrawal vs Chamrulal Agrawal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 921 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Acquittal Appeal No.140 of 2016

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sakti, Distt.
Janjgir-Champa
                                                          ---- Appellant

                                              Versus

Chamrulal Agrawal, S/o Ganpatrai Agrawal, Aged about 47 years, R/o
Station Road, Sakti, P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
                                                       ---- Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant/State: Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate. For Respondent: Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND

Criminal Revision No.7 of 2004

Kailash Agrawal, S/o Mangeram Agrawal, aged about 42 years, R/o Ward No.13, Station Road, Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Complainant)

---- Applicant

Versus

1. Chamrulal Agrawal, S/o Ganpat Rai Agrawal, aged about 47 years, Station Road, Sakti, P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Accused)

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Prosecutor)

---- Non-applicants

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant/Complainant: -

Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate.

For Non-applicant No.1/Accused: -

Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.

For State/Non-applicant No.2: -

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

13/02/2023

1. Since both the above acquittal appeal and criminal revision have

arisen out of one and same judgment dated 30-8-2003 passed by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case

No.818/1998, they have been clubbed together, heard together and

are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Acquittal Appeal No.140/2016 has been preferred by the appellant /

State against the impugned judgment acquitting accused Chamrulal

Agrawal of the charges under Sections 420 & 467 of the IPC.

3. Cr.Rev.No.7/2004 has been preferred by the complainant - Kailash

Agrawal under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC against

the impugned judgment seeking award of sentence to accused

Chamrulal Agrawal.

4. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti by judgment dated 30-

8-2003 has acquitted accused Chamrulal Agrawal of the offences

under Sections 420 & 467 of the IPC against which acquittal appeal

has been preferred by the State and criminal revision has been

preferred by the complainant.

5. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the

complainant - Kailash Agrawal, and Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned

Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, would submit

that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is absolutely

unjustified in acquitting the accused by recording a finding which is

perverse to the record.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for

the accused, would support the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

8. Mutation in Nazul record was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Sakti on the basis of unregistered documents produced by

the accused which was assailed by the complainant before the Court

of Additional Collector, Korba and in turn, before the Commissioner,

Bilaspur and the order of the SDO was set aside by the said Courts

and on 9-2-1992, the complainant filed report Ex.P-2 before the police

station and the offence was registered. After appreciating oral and

documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the

conclusion that the document being forged has not been proved and

therefore acquitted the accused against which this acquittal appeal

and criminal revision have been preferred.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and

taking into account that the document in question has not been found

to be forged by the learned ACJM and one of the plausible views the

ACJM has taken and in view of the well settled law that one view as

taken by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the appellate

Court unless it is found that the view taken by the court is illegal or

perverse, I hold that the criminal revision and the acquittal appeal both

sans merit and accordingly, they are dismissed having no merit.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma