Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M.G. Shyam Kunwar on 1 September, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally signed 2025:CGHC:44214-DB
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 477 of 2020
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh., (C.G.)
... Applicant
Versus
1 - M.G. Shyam Kunwar, S/o Gopichand Shyamkunwar, aged about 58 years,
R/o A 2 Plus Corner, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Presently R/o Office of Joint
Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur (C.G.).
2 - Shivram Tirkey, S/o Govind Ram Tirkey, aged about 58 years, R/o
Parsapani, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently R/o
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Surajpur (C.G.).
3 - M.R. Bhagat, S/o Late Dayaram Bhagat, aged about 55 years, R/o
Chhatasarai, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.).
Presently R/o office of Soil Conservation Officer, Ambikapur, District -
Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Applicant/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Swapnil Kesari, counsel on behalf of
Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3. : Mr. Basant Dewangan, counsel on behalf of
Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
Order on Board
Per Rajani Dubey, J.
01.09.2025.
1. The applicant/State has filed this criminal revision under Section 397
r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 against the judgment dated 26.09.2019
passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2019 affirming the judgment dated
23.10.2018 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District-
Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 5703/2013 whereby the
respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 409, 420/34 of I.P.C.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 02.07.2009, the Dy.
Director, Agriculture, Ambikapur (C.G.) was appointed as implementing
agency for developing nursery of 30 lacs plants of sugarcane in the
area of Mahamaya Sugarcane Mill on the administrative sanction of
Rs. 69.80 lakhs. As the work was not completed as per the prescribed
norms by Dy. Director, Agriculture. M.G. Shyam Kunwar, Soil
Conservation Officer M.R. Bhagat, Agriculture Extension Officer Soil
Conservation Premnagar Shivram Tirkey and Senior Agriculture
Extension officer Pratappur D.K. Malviya and on the instructions of the
Collector, Surguja, S.L. Soni, Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Panchayat Surguja, S.K. Ravi Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering
Service, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, Rajiv Khedkar, Sub Chief Sugarcane
Development Officer, Maa Mahamaya Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana
Maryadit, Ambikapur and P. Dayanand, S.D.O. (R), Pratappur have
been appointed as member of the enquiry committee. The Enquiry
Committee after due enquiry submitted its report before the Collector,
Surguja on 05.06.2008. In the enquiry it is found that the implementing
agency committed irregularities like not registering the Muster Roll, give
muster roll without dates, not entering the measurement in
Measurement Book and Muster Roll, not issuing the payment etc. It is
also found that there were irregularities in purchasing of seeds and
other materials and there was violation of rules of Bhandar Kray Niyam.
In the enquiry it is found that there is recovery amount of about Rs. 19,
39, 336/-. On the basis of enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Panchayat vide order dated 26.07.2008 directed to register the FIR
against the accused persons. The police registered the offence under
Sections 409 & 420 of IPC against the accused persons/respondents
under Crime No. 304/2008. On the basis of letter dated 08.08.2008 of
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja, name of D.K. Malviya,
Senior Agriculture Extension Officer, Pratapur has been included in the
FIR.
3. After completing the necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the accused persons/respondents under Sections 409 & 420 of
IPC followed by framing of charges accordingly.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined only 02
witnesses. Statement of the accused persons/respondents were also
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their
innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, no
witness has been adduced by them.
5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
vide judgment dated 23.10.2018 acquitted respondents of the charges
under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC. Against the judgment dated
23.10.2018, an appeal was filed by the applicant/State before the
Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated
26.09.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2019 dismissed the appeal of
the State/applicant. Hence, this revision filed by the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that the order passed
by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are illegal,
improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial
Court has committed material error in acquitting the accused
persons/respondents. The learned trial Court has erred in closing the
evidence of the prosecution, ignoring the grievous offence of
embezzlement and misuse of government exchequer for about Rs.
69.06 lakhs. The learned trial Court has erred in not giving time to the
prosecution for recording the evidence of the witnesses. The learned
trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
properly and arrived to an erroneous findings. The learned trial Court
has committed an error in deciding the facts in case and the law points.
The learned Appellate Court also did not consider all grounds of appeal
and wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by the State/applicant. As such,
the order passed by both the Courts are liable to be set aside and the
accused/respondents are liable to be convicted.
7. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned judgment
and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral
and documentary evidence and rightly finds that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but acquitted the
accused persons/respondents. Against this judgment, the
State/applicant filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the
learned Sessions Judge has also considered all grounds of the appeal
and again appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly
dismissed the appeal filed by the State/applicant. So, the concurrent
findings of both the Courts on facts and law are based on proper
appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and guideline of
Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, this revision is without any merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard both the counsel for the respective parties and perused
the material available on record.
9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial
Court framed charges under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC against the
accused/respondents. The learned trial Court framed charges on
01.04.2016 and the case was fixed for evidence of prosecution
witnesses. On 09.10.2018, the learned trial Court gave last chance for
prosecution evidence and the case was fixed on 16.10.2018, but on
that date, the witnesses were not present. The learned trial Court again
fixed the case for further evidence on 17.10.2018, however, on that
date the witnesses were not present and even summons report was not
received by the Court. As such, the learned trial Court closed the
prosecution evidence and the case was fixed for taking statements of
accused/respondents and on 23.10.2018, the learned trial Court
passed the judgment. It is clear from the record of the learned trial
Court that in this case, charge-sheet was filed on 13.01.2010, but the
charges were framed on 01.04.2016 and since 17.10.2018 the
prosecution has examined only two witnesses to substantiate its case
and both the witnesses viz. Munna Das (PW/01) and Suraj Dev Singh
(PW/02) have not supported the prosecution case. So, the learned trial
Court acquitted the accused/respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant/State filed the appeal against this
order before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions
Judge by considering all grounds of appeal has dismissed the appeal of
the prosecution. The learned Appellate Court finds in paras 15, 16 & 17
which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"15.उक्त आदेश के पश्चात उभयपक्ष को सुनने के उपरांत दिनांक 23/10/2018
को निर्णय घोषित किया गया था। इस प्रकार अभियोजन के यह तर्क भी मान्य किये
जाने योग्य नहीं है कि विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभियोजन का साक्ष्य का अवसर
समाप्त घोषित करने के उपरांत निर्णय पारित कर दिये जाने से उन्हें उपरोक्त आदेश
को वरिष्ठ न्यायालय में चुनौती देने का अवसर नहीं मिला था। यह उल्लेखनीय है कि
साक्ष्य समाप्त घोषित किये जाने से अंतिम निर्णय दिनांक की समयावधि में भी
अभियोजन द्वारा अभियोजन साक्ष्य समाप्त घोषित किये जाने के आदेश को वरिष्ठ
न्यायालय में कोई चुनौती नहीं दी गई थी।
16. अपीलार्थी द्वारा लिये गये आधारों से केवल और केवल यह दर्शित होता है कि
वे विद्वान विचारण के समक्ष अपनी साक्ष्य पेश न कर पाने के दायित्व की विफलता
को मात्र विचारण न्यायालय पर अधिरोपित कर देना चाहते हैं। आपराधिक प्रकरण
में भी दो पक्ष यथा-अभियोजन एवं आरोपी होते हैं। अभियोजन पर भी अपने मामले
को संदेह से परे साबित करने का हेतु साक्ष्य पेश करने का विधिक दायित्व है और
अभियोजन ने विचारण न्यायालय के अभियोजन साक्ष्य समाप्त घोषित करने के
आदेश दिनांक 17/10/2018 को वरिष्ठ न्यायालय में चुनौती तक नहीं दी गई है।
17. यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि मात्र किसी पक्षकार की इच्छा पर किसी प्रकरण को
अनंतकाल तक लंबित नहीं रखा जा सकता है। इस प्रकार विचारण न्यायालय
द्वारा शेष साक्षीगण के साक्ष्य हेतु अभियोजन को पर्याप्त अवसर प्रदान किये जाने
तथा चेतावनी के साथ अंतिम अवसर प्रदान किये जाने के उपरांत भी अभियोजन
द्वारा साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने में असफल रहने से विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा उचित रूप
से अभियोजन साक्ष्य का अवसर समाप्त घोषित किया जाना प्रकट होता है ,
उपरोक्त परिस्थितियों में विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा विधिक प्रक्रिया के तहत
आदेशिका जारी कर साक्षीगण को आहूत किये जाने का भरसक प्रयास किया गया
था, किंतु अभियोजन उपरोक्त आदेशिकाओं की तामीली सुनिश्चित करा पाने में
असफल रहा है। ऐसी परिस्थिति में विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभियोजन साक्ष्य
का समाप्त घोषित कर प्रकरण का निराकरण करने में कोई वैधानिक त्रुटि की जाना
परिलक्षित नहीं होता है। वर्ष 2010 से लंबित प्रकरण को पुनः विचारण हेतु
प्रतिप्रेषित किये जाने के भी कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। इसलिये उपरोक्त
कारणों से अपीलार्थी/राज्य शासन का प्रकरण को पुनः शेष साक्षियों के परीक्षण
हेतु विचारण न्यायालय को प्रति-प्रेषित कर दिये जाने के संबंध में तर्क मान्य किये
जाने योग्य नहीं रह जाता है।"
11. It is clear that the learned trial Court has given sufficient time to the
prosecution to prove its case, but the prosecution has failed to prove its
case in absence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Appellate Court
has also considered all grounds of appeal and rightly dismissed the
appeal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court with regard to the
concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court. It is well settled principle of law that the judgment of
acquittal should not be interfered with merely because two views are
possible on the basis of material available on record. The trial Court after
due appreciation of the oral evidence on record, recorded a finding of
acquittal which has been duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
Being so, this Court does not find any substance in this revision.
13. Accordingly, this revision filed by the applicant/State is without any
merit and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
U. K. Raju
