Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Duleshwari Bai vs Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal And Ors on 11 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.29 of 2012
Smt. Duleshwari Bai, Wife of Ramanand Singh, aged about 45
years, Caste- Gond, R/o Village Sarna, Village Panchayat Amhar,
P.S. Patna, District- Korea, C.G.
---- Applicant
Versus
1.Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Shivnath Jaiswal, aged about 29 years,
2. Ravishankar Jaiswal S/o Shivnath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 47 years (Both are R/o village Amhar, Police Station Patna, District- Korea, C.G.)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District- Korea, C.G.
---- Non-applicant For Applicant - Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicants No.1 & 2- Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For State - Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
S.B.:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 11-11-2022 Heard.
1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment passed by the learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, Place- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.73/2011 dated 09.08.2011, whereby the non-applicants No.1 and 2 acquitted from the charges under Section 419, 420/34, 421/34 of I.P.C., whereas the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G., in Criminal Case -2- No.813/2001 had convicted the non-applicants No.1 and 2 vide judgment dated 29.03.2011 for the offences given below:-
Conviction Sentence For applicants No.1 and 2 U/s. 420/34 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03-03 years and fine of Code. Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 10-10 days.
U/s. 421/34 of Indian Penal R.I. for 02-02 years. Code.
For applicant No.01 U/s.419 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03 years.
Code.
2. The non-applicants No.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.73/2011 before the First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, against the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and vide judgment dated 09.11.2011, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the non-applicants for the aforementioned offences. Against which, this Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant, who was then the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Amhar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Sessions Court has committed illegality by acquitting the non- applicants No.1 and 2, whereas there are ample evidence against them. He further submits that from 1994-2000, the non-applicant No.1 was Sarpanch, whereas non-applicant No.2 was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Amhar. In the month of February 2000, the complainant was elected as Sarpanch of the 3 Gram Panchayat, Amhar. It is further stated that the cheque No.630905 dated 24.03.2000 amounting to Rs.21,737/- was issued in favour of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Amhar but same was received by non-applicant No.1 and it was deposited in his private account. He further submits that the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the non-applicants No.1 and 2. He further submits that learned Sessions Court has committed illegality in acquitting the non-applicants No.1 and 2 ignoring the documentary as well as oral evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants No.1 and 2, Mr. Bharat Sharma and learned State counsel, Ms. Ruchi Nagar submit that the learned lower appellate Court after appreciating evidence found no material against the non- applicants No.1 and 2 and therefore, acquitted them. There is no illegality in the order impugned, therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Revision preferred by the complainant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the record, it appears that written complaint was lodged by the applicant against Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal i.e. non-applicant No.1 alone but the F.I.R. was registered against two persons, non- applicants No.1 and 2. Prosecution has not seized cheque which was alleged to be issued by the department in favour of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Amhar. The account details of the non-applicant No.1, deposit receipt, passbook etc. have neither been seized nor proved by the prosecution.
7. Learned lower appellate Court has discussed all these -4- irregularities in the investigation. An application was moved by the State for withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. though it was rejected by the learned Court below.
8. Considering the findings recorded by the learned Court below, I do not find any material to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Court below or to upset the findings recorded by it.
9. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Monika Judge