1 2025:CGHC:44214-DB 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. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 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 3 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. 4 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 5 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 6 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 दिदनांक 23/10/2018 को दिनर्णय घोदित दिकया गया था। इस प्रकार अभिभयोजन के यह तक भी मान्य दिकये जाने योग्य नहीं है दिक दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय द्वारा अभिभयोजन का साक्ष्य का अ)सर समाप्त घोदित करने के उपरांत दिनर्णय पारिरत कर दिदये जाने से उन्हें उपरोक्त आदेश को )रिरष्ठ न्यायालय में चुनौती देने का अ)सर नहीं दिमला था। यह उल्लेखनीय है दिक साक्ष्य समाप्त घोदित दिकये जाने से अंतितम दिनर्णय दिदनांक की समया)ति7 में भी अभिभयोजन द्वारा अभिभयोजन साक्ष्य समाप्त घोदित दिकये जाने के आदेश को )रिरष्ठ न्यायालय में कोई चुनौती नहीं दी गई थी। 16. अपीलाथ9 द्वारा लिलये गये आ7ारों से के )ल और के )ल यह दर्शिशत होता है दिक )े दि)द्वान दि)चारर्ण के समक्ष अपनी साक्ष्य पेश न कर पाने के दातियत्) की दि)फलता को मात्र दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय पर अति7रोदिपत कर देना चाहते हैं। आपराति7क प्रकरर्ण में भी दो पक्ष यथा- अभिभयोजन ए)ं आरोपी होते हैं। अभिभयोजन पर भी अपने मामले को संदेह से परे सादिCत करने का हेतु साक्ष्य पेश करने का दि)ति7क दातियत्) है और 7 अभिभयोजन ने दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय के अभिभयोजन साक्ष्य समाप्त घोदित करने के आदेश दिदनांक 17/10/2018 को )रिरष्ठ न्यायालय में चुनौती तक नहीं दी गई है। 17. यह भी उल्लेखनीय है दिक मात्र दिकसी पक्षकार की इच्छा पर दिकसी प्रकरर्ण को अनंतकाल तक लंदिCत नहीं रखा जा सकता है। इस प्रकार दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय द्वारा शे साक्षीगर्ण के साक्ष्य हेतु अभिभयोजन को पयाप्त अ)सर प्रदान दिकये जाने तथा चेता)नी के साथ अंतितम अ)सर प्रदान दिकये जाने के उपरांत भी अभिभयोजन द्वारा साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने में असफल रहने से दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय द्वारा उतिचत रूप से अभिभयोजन साक्ष्य का अ)सर समाप्त घोदित दिकया जाना प्रकट होता है, उपरोक्त परिरस्थिस्थतितयों में दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय द्वारा दि)ति7क प्रदिJया के तहत आदेभिशका जारी कर साक्षीगर्ण को आहूत दिकये जाने का भरसक प्रयास दिकया गया था, किंकतु अभिभयोजन उपरोक्त आदेभिशकाओं की तामीली सुदिनतिश्चत करा पाने में असफल रहा है। ऐसी परिरस्थिस्थतित में दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय द्वारा अभिभयोजन साक्ष्य का समाप्त घोदित कर प्रकरर्ण का दिनराकरर्ण करने में कोई )ै7ादिनक त्रुदिट की जाना परिरलतिक्षत नहीं होता है। ) 2010 से लंदिCत प्रकरर्ण को पुनः दि)चारर्ण हेतु प्रतितप्रेदित दिकये जाने के भी कोई आ7ार दि)द्यमान नहीं है। इसलिलये उपरोक्त कारर्णों से अपीलाथ9/ राज्य शासन का प्रकरर्ण को पुनः शे सातिक्षयों के परीक्षर्ण हेतु दि)चारर्ण न्यायालय को प्रतित- प्रेदित कर दिदये जाने के संCं7 में तक मान्य दिकये 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 8 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