Chattisgarh High Court
Tekchand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:43788
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 784 of 2022
Tekchand S/o Bhagwan Das Jaiswal Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Shakti
Ward No. 6, Police Station Shakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Shakti,
District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
--- Respondent
____________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/08/2025
1. Applicant has filed this revision petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.14/2018, by which learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2018, passed in Criminal Case No. 2062/1996, whereby the Digitally Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, District - Janjgir- signed by BALRAM BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Champa convicted applicant for the offence punishable U/s. 420 of the PRASAD DEWANGAN Date:
2025.09.12 18:12:43 +0530 2 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Jagdish Prasad Agrawal submitted an application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti alleging that on 19.09.1994, applicant/accused Tekchand by submitting false affidavit and application before the Court, obtained Vehicle Jeep No. MP-26-A-4002 on Supurdnama and thereby committed fraud upon the Court. Based on the application submitted by complainant, FIR was registered against applicant and matter was investigated. During investigation, it was found that real registered owner of aforesaid vehicle as per information given by RTO, Bilaspur is Shrikant Katdekar, which is number of Luna Moped. The application and affidavit submitted by applicant was seized, notice U/s. 91 of the Cr.P.C. was given to applicant, statement of the witnesses U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against applicant for offence U/s.420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Applicant was charged with Sections 420, 467, 478 of IPC. Applicant denied the charges and prayed for trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses namely Jagdish Prasad Agrawal (P.W.-1), Naresh Sewak (P.W.02), Shankar Agrawal (P.W.-3), Ghasiyaram (P.W.-4), Om Prakash (PW5), Devendra Kesharwani (P.W.-6), Madanlal Agrawal (P.W.-7), Lal Kishore Sinha (P.W.-8) and Investigation Officer Narendra Mishra (P.W.9). Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all 3 incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by the applicant in defence.
4. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court, upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted the applicant for offences under Section 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 3 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by the impugned order upholding the conviction and sentence of applicant under Section 420 of I.P.C.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the conviction against applicant is erroneous and without there being any cogent and clinching evidence. Learned Trial Court as also the Appellate Court (Hereinafter referred as "Courts") erred in convicting applicant for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. without there being any admissible piece of evidence in this regard. It is contended that learned Courts acted with material irregularity by failing to consider the bonafide mistake of applicant, which occurred due to incorrect details in the nakal jarayam of Crime No. 185/94, wrongly mentioning Jeep No. MP-
26-A-4002. It is undisputed that the engine and chassis numbers matches applicant's vehicle, purchased earlier from an authorized dealer. The error in the number plate was unintentional, and there was no dishonest intention. The finding recorded by learned Courts are contrary to the material available on record as it has been established that from chassis number and engine number of jeep, it belongs to applicant's family which he obtained on Supurdnama. 4
6. In alternative he submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that order of conviction is based on the appreciation of evidence by the learned Courts then this Court may kindly consider that applicant is a Senior Citizen of about 80 years, he remained in custody for a period of about one month, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 1996 i.e. for about 30 years, therefore, taking lenient view, the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in revision and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial Court after minute evaluation of oral and documentary evidence has correctly held applicant guilty of commission of offence alleged against him which is also affirmed by learned appellate Court and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of the Courts below.
9. Perusal of record reveals that, based on a complaint made by complainant Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, a case was registered against applicant for obtaining the vehicle on Supurdnama declaring him to be of his own by using a false affidavit and application.
10. Prosecution has examined complainant Jagdish Prasad Agrawal as (P.W.-1), who in his evidence though has made hostile statement, however, he admitted that he submitted an affidavit/application (Ex.P- 5
1) in Police Station Sakti. Though this witness has not supported the contents of affidavit (Ex.P-1) submitted by him, however, he has not denied his signature on Ex.P-1. Naresh Sewak (P.W.-2), who is practicing as an Advocate has stated in his evidence that a jeep was seized in some crime number of Police Station Sakti and applicant contacted him to get it on Supurdnama. Then he wrote a supurdnama application on his instructions and presented it in the court and the seized vehicle was given to accused on supurdnama. This witness admitted that accused showed him Form No.26 of RTO Bilaspur in which it was written that the original file of the vehicle has been burnt.
11. Prosecution has also examined Regional Transport Officer, Devendra Kesharwani as (P.W.-6), who in his evidence has stated that a letter was written from Police Station Sakti, seeking information with respect to vehicle No. MP-26A-4002 and based on this, RTO, Bilaspur has supplied information that vehicle No. MP-26A-4002 is a Luna Moped belonged to Shrikant Katdekar and it does not have number of jeep. The letter written by Police Station Sakti to RTO, Bilaspur is Article A-
2. Information supplied by RTO, Bilaspur to Police Station Sakti is Article A-1 and copy of Form No.26 is Article A-3.
12. Narendra Mishra, Investigation Officer is examined as (P.W.-9). This witness has stated that notice of Ex.P-7 was given to applicant regarding document of ownership of vehicle No. MP-26A-4002 and as per Ex.P-10, seized the Jeep from the applicant. He further stated that on the basis of complaint made by complainant, Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, FIR (Ex.P-5) was registered against applicant in Police Station Sakti under Crime No.56 of 1996 for the alleged offence. 6 During course of investigation, he wrote application (Ex.P-6) to RTO, Bilaspur seeking information with regard to vehicle N.MP-26A-4002 on which RTO, Bilaspur supplied information of Article-1 according to which vehicle No. MP-26A-4002 was number of Luna Moped belonged to Shrikant Katdekar and said number was not the number of Jeep. This witness has provided testimony that supports and verifies the procedures followed during the investigation.
13. The record shows that prosecution submitted order sheet of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti (Ex.C.3), along with an application (Ex.C.1) by accused, Tekchand, seeking release of a vehicle on supurdnama, and a supporting affidavit (Ex.C.2). The application, filed through advocate Naresh Sewak for getting jeep No. MP-26A-4002 on supurdnama. However, as per Article A-1 proved by witness Devendra Kesarwani (P.W.-6), Regional Transport Officer this registration number actually belongs to a moped (Luna), not a jeep. This witness confirmed this based on official records and denied all contrary suggestions given to him during cross-examination.
14. Further perusal of notice given to applicant (Ex.P-7) during the investigation reveals that applicant was asked to produce documents regarding ownership of jeep. In response, applicant stated that he did not possess any such documents. Consequently, no documents proving ownership of the jeep were submitted either during the investigation or at trial. If applicant files an application for getting the vehicle on supurdnama, it was incumbent upon him to explain how he determined and mentioned the registration number of vehicle as MP- 26A-4002.
7
15. From overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that the applicant, Tekchand, submitted a false affidavit and application to obtain a vehicle on supurdnama by wrongly claiming ownership of a jeep bearing registration number MP-26A-4002. However, official records from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) confirm that this registration number belongs to a Luna moped, not a jeep. Despite being given the opportunity, the applicant failed to produce any ownership documents during the investigation or trial. The prosecution's witnesses, particularly the RTO and Investigating Officer, have provided consistent and credible evidence supporting the case. In view of these facts, the applicant has not been able to justify or explain his case.
16. The trial Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, found applicant guilty under Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court. For interference in concurrent findings of fact in revision, it has to be shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials. Learned counsel for applicant has not been able to bring to notice of this Court, any circumstances indicating that concurrent findings of the Courts is perverse or incorrect in any manner. This being the position, I am satisfied that the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly came to the conclusion that applicant committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Hence, I find no reason 8 to interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.
17. As regards quantum of sentence, taking into consideration the fact that offence is said to have taken place way back in the year 1994 and FIR was registered in the year 1996. Applicant has been convicted for the offences U/s. 420 of I.P.C. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the said offence under the Indian Penal Code. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and from perusal of the record would show that applicant was in jail from 26.02.1996 till 18.03.1996 i.e. 20 days during trial, he was again sent on jail when judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed by apellate Court and order of suspension of substantive jail sentence was passed by this Court on 02.08.2022 in this revision. Thereby, applicant has completed about 27 days in jail. Applicant is facing rigor of trial for the last about 29 to 30 years, applicant is about 75 years of age. From the above facts, it appears to this Court that the ends of justice would meet if the jail sentence awarded to applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
18. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction and sentence of applicant under Section 420 IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him maintaining the sentence of fine. Applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram