1 2025:CGHC:25172-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 111 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mungeli, Tehsil And Revenue District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Hook Kumar (dead) 2. Prabhakar Tripathi (dead) 3. Ramavtar (dead- This fact came to notice today itself) 4. Ganga Prasad S/o Shri Bhikhariram Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Sarai Singar, Police Chowki Hardi Bazar Police Staion Kosmanda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/ State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.06.2025 1. Heard, Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. for the appellant/ State, also heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, appearing for the respondents. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.19 18:02:09 +0530 2 2. During the pendency of the appeal respondents/ accused namely Hook Kumar and Prabhakar Tripathi have died and their names have been deleted from the array of respondents by order dated 13.02.2025. 3. In compliance of order dated 21.04.2025, bailable warrants were issued for surviving respondents/ accused namely Ramavtar and Ganga Prasad. A report has been received from the concerned police station stating that respondent namely Ramavtar has died on 03.02.2023 and death certificate has also been filed as such the appeal against respondent namely Ramavtar also stands abated. The appeal now is being pending only on behalf of respondent Ganga Prasad. 4. In compliance of order dated 21.04.2025, respondent/ accused Ganga Prasad, is present before this court and is identified by learned counsel Mr. Awadh Tripathi. 5. This acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. in Criminal Case No. 200/2013, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, has acquitted respondents herein from all the charges framed against them. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused Hook Kumar while working as Salesman Seva Sahakari Samiti, Fandwani, Prabhakar Tripathi as Manager, accused Ramavtar as Branch Manager of Chhantan Branch and accused Ganga Prasad Dubey as Manager of 3 Seva Sahakari Samiti, Kanteli acted in an illegal manner and committed the offence of forging the documents and criminal breach of trust. It was the allegation against them that, the amount of Rs. 49,000/- collected by them against the disposal of fertilizer was dishonestly defalcated and in this regard, they forged certain documents. 7. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and there was no defence witness. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent. 8. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26.07.2016 acquitted the respondents/ accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State submits that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and nothing had been come in their cross-examination by which it can be held that no offence is made out against respondents, but ignoring all the material against the respondents, learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment which is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused, submit that the judgment of acquittal is well merited and does not require any interference. 4 11. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 12. Bhagwat PW-3 says that he knows accused Hook Kumar and Prabhakar Tripathi. Prabhakar Tripathi was the manager of the fair price shop of Fadwani Cooperative Society and accused Hook Kumar was the seller. In the year 1998, he had taken 25 bags of urea and 20 bags of super phosphate from the said shop, for which he had deposited Rs. 8,300/- in the year 1999. After that, he received information regarding deposit of money for 21 bags of urea and 21 bags of super phosphate. On complaining in this regard, an investigation was conducted. His loan book was called for, which was later returned. The seizure of the loan book is Ex.P- 14, on which his signatures are present on parts a to c. In his loan book, there are 21 bags of urea and 20 bags of super phosphate. There was no entry of taking urea and 21 bags of super phosphate. The demand letter given to him regarding depositing the amount of the said fertilizer is Ex.P. 15. In this regard, a typewritten complaint was presented in Mungeli police station, which is Ex.P. 16, on which his signatures are there on parts A to C. The permit number issued in respect of 21 bags of urea and 21 bags of super phosphate is 79269. Which is item number-4 and his signature is not there on its A to C parts. 13. From the bare perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness and material available on record it is apparent that all the prosecution witnesses have completely stated against the main 5 accused Hook Kumar that he is the main culprit in the crime whereas there is no specific averment/ statement against the present accused namely Ganga Prasad. 14. It is a well settled law that an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the evidence, the oral as well as documentary evidence, then the Appellate Court has right to reverse the decision of the trial Court. In absence of compelling and substantial reasons for doing so, if there are two possible or plausible reasons found from the record, the Appellate Court always should accept the decision of the trial court. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 18 SCC 540 has held that the appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal 6 recorded by the trial court. 16. Considering the above findings and reasons recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, We are of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted respondent Ganga Prasad from the charges framed against him. 17. Consequently, the Acquittal appeal is dismissed. 18. The record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court as well as Appellate Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Jyoti