[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
1 CRR-114-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 114 of 2026
VINOD KUMAR PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Naim Khan - Advocate for the applicant
Shri Pankaj Rai - P.L. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision is already admitted.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
3. This Revision is filed against the Order dated 17.12.2025 in
Cr.A.No.22/2024 (Vinod Kumar Patel Vs. State through Police Station
Civil Lines, Jabalpur) by which the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and maintained the order of the learned JMFC in RCT
No.8111856/2010 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar Patel), Judgment dated
22.12.2023, by which the learned trial court convicted the accused under
Section 380 IPC with one year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, and under
Section 201 IPC with six months R.I., and with default stipulation -
additional R.I for 30 days. .
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revisioner that
the trial court committed gross error in appreciation of facts and law,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
2 CRR-114-2026
evidence was not properly evaluated, wrong conclusions were drawn. It
is further submitted that the file, which was alleged to be stolen, was
present before the Court from the beginning. The applicant did not
confess to steal. The Court staff themselves lost the file and falsely
implicated the applicant to protect themselves. Hence, prayer is made to
allow the revision and set aside the conviction.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that the
applicant fraudulently and dishonestly stole the file of the Court of Shri
Anand Tiwari, Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur on 27.8.2010 which was in the possession of the Reader
of the Court Shri Kailash Chandra. Learned Counsel for the State
supports the Award.
6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that FIR - Ex.P/4 was
lodged on 7.9.2010, in which it is stated that between 27.8.2010 and
1.9.2010, crime was committed. Accused was arrested on 8.9.2010.
7. It is further seen that this FIR was lodged on the basis of the
written complaint - Ex.-P/3 by the learned court, in which it is
mentioned that on 27.8.2010, Cr.A.No.271/2009 (Vinod Patel Vs. State)
was pending for final hearing. Before that date, in appeal the
appellant/accused appeared in self without his Advocate Shri Ravindra
Kuamr Saini, and sought time for final arguments. Court gave the file
for signature to Counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar Saini. The
appellant/accused and his Advocate took the file and went to the table of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
3 CRR-114-2026
the Reader, and thereafter went away from the Court. At about 5:30
p.m. when file was searched, it was not traceable, then someone said
that:-
''हो सकता है क उ फाईल कसी अ य फाईल म दब गई हो,
ले कन काफ छानबीन करने के उपरांत भी फाईल नह ं िमली।''
On 4.9.2010, the Reader informed that he had searched the
complete almirah and minutely searched for the file, but that is not
traceable. On 5.9.2010, no court work was done, as it was an
holiday. On 6.9.2010, a show cause notice was issued to the accused to
appear on 8.9.2010, whether they have taken the file of Appeal
No.271/2009 with them. On 7.9.2010, appellant/accused appeared with
his advocate and stated that he made a theft of the file and took the court
file in Polythene on 27.8.2010, and on 1.9.2010 he burnt the file. When
it was asked why he committed such an act, then he replied that he had
family problems and therefore has lost his mental balance. Thereafter,
his statement was taken and Statement of Counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar
Saini was taken. The enquiry statement of Vinod Patel and Shri
Ravindra Kumar Saini are attached in the record. It is seen that the file
of Criminal Case No.4795/2008 of JMFC, Jabalpur, Judgment dated
30.7.2009, which was alleged to have been burnt, in that file as stated in
enquiry statement by Advocate Shri Ravindra Kumar Saini, the accused
was punished under Section 341 IPC with fine of Rs.300/-, under
Section 509 IPC with three months simple imprisonment, and under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
4 CRR-114-2026
Section 506 IPC - six months R.I. He stated that he had signed the file
and directed the accused Vinod Kumar Patel to sign the file when the
Reader comes, and then came to his Seat (working place of the
Advocates in the Court). He has further stated that thereafter accused
did not contact him. Subsequently, when he was going to the Court on
3.9.2010, then accused called him that the due date of the case is
27.9.2010, therefore, don't go the Court, therefore, he did not go to the
Court. On 6.9.2010, it was informed to the Counsel for the appellant that
the file is missing, then he went to the house of the appellant/accused,
and enquired from his father, the accused came to his house at about
10:45 p.m. and informed that he had stolen the file from the Court and
destroyed it.
8. During trial, P.W.-1 Ravindra Kumar Saini, who has
supported his enquiry statement and also about the confession by the
accused that he has stolen the file, in cross-examination he has denied
the suggestion that confession was not made by the accused to him, but
admitted that he did not see the accused stealing the file and burning it.
9. P.W.-2 is Anil Kumar, who has turned hostile regarding
Panchnama - Ex.-P/1 regarding the place of burning of file.
10. P.W.-3 is Kailash Chandra Jain, who has narrated the entire
sequence, as per the prosecution case. In cross-examination also,
nothing has been stated by this Reader on account of which it can be
held as illegal as to what has been decided by the trial court in this case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
5 CRR-114-2026
in conviction Judgment.
11. P.W.-4 is Yashaswini Yadav, who has investigated the
matter and recorded the Memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence
Act. Nothing of substance has come in cross-examination on account of
which any punishment can be set aside as granted to the accused.
12. P.W.-5 Pratap Kumar Shukla, Civil Reader, who has
supported the case in Examination-in-Chief and in cross-examination
submitted that Civil Reader's work is not related to criminal files. He
further admitted in Paragraph 4 that the files which are posted further,
their entries are made in Board diary, but since this file was not
traceable, therefore, in Board Diary no entry was made.
13. P.W.-6 is Sub Inspector Shri R.C. Tripathi, who has
supported the prosecution and further stated that ashes of the burnt file
could not be recovered, as it was stated to have been burnt outside the
boundary, below an electricity Pole. Since it was raining on 28.08.2010,
therefore ashes were either washed or were cleaned in an usual way by
the persons responsible for cleaning. In cross-examination, nothing of
substance has come.
14. P.W.-7 is the learned Appellate Court Judge Shri Anand
Kumar Tiwari, who in his statement has narrated the entire sequence and
in cross-examination, nothing of substance has come so as to acquit the
appellant/accused.
15. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nothing has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11665
6 CRR-114-2026
stated on the basis of which any different opinion can be held, but one
thing is very relevant that in answer to question No.53, he has stated:-
''53. उ सा ी आपके व य कहते ह ?
उ र- झूठा फँसाने के िलए झूठ बोल दे ते ह।''
But it is not explained who had enmity with the
appellant/accused. Therefore, on overall perusal, there is nothing on the
basis of which it can be held that appreciation of evidence was not
proper regarding the fact and law. In fact, as a ground of revision, it is
mentioned that file was available, but nowhere it has been established
that after the date from which the file was missing, it was ever traceable
or any certified copy was taken.
In view of above observations, this Criminal Revision is
dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
nd
