1 2025:CGHC:4949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 733 of 2018 1 - Uco Bank Branch Charouda, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Through Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Charouda, P. S. Old Bhilai, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Old Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramesh Kumar Bunkar S/o Nandkishor Bunkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Qt. No. 1412, Road No. 30, Near Dashara Maidan, Patwari Badi Road, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, Supela, Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jailal Nishad S/o Ramadhin Nishad Aged About 44 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Camp-1, Ward No. 17, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shdevram S/o Kartikram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Power House, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And CRR No. 886 of 2018 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus 2 1 - Ramesh Kumar Bunkar S/o Nand Kishore Bunkar Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 1412, Street No. 30, Near Dashahara Maidan, Patwari Badi Road, Shanti Nagar Supela Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jailal Nishad S/o Ramadhin Nishad Aged About 44 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Camp No. 1, Ward No. 17, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sahdeo Ram S/o Kartik Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Santoshi Para, Camp 2, Power House Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Court Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate in CRR No. 733/2018 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate in CRR No. 886/2018 For Respondent No.1 in CRR No. 733/2018 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. For Res. No. 2 in CRR No.733 and Res. No. 1 in CRR No.886/2018 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bunkar, respondent in person. For Res. Nos. 3 and 4 in CRR No.733/2018 & for Res. Nos. 2 and 3 in CRR No.886/2018 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Shu, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board) 28.01.2025 1. Since, the aforesaid criminal revisions arise out of the same judgment dated 31.03.2018, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid criminal revisions arise out of the impugned 3 judgment and order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No.67/2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, Distict Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3104/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Ramesh Kumar Bunkar from the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC & accused/respondents Jailal Nishad and Sahdeo Ram from the offence under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC . 3. Brief facts of the case are that 05/11/2002 at 10:25 am, K.P. Kumaran, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Charoda Branch made a written report in Police Station Bhilai-3 to the effect that on 05/11/2002 a sum of Rs. 13,99,190.00/- was found missing from the cash safe of UCO Bank Charoda Branch. It was submitted in the report that on 02.11.2002, Sunil Shrivastava, Assistant Manager, Bhimsen Patel, Daftary and Kameshwar Yadav, Daily Wager, came with cash of Rs.10 Lakh from Sector-1 Branch, which was kept in cash safe by Sunil Shrivastava, Assistant Manager and Bernard Kerketta, Head Cashier and thereafter, the cash safe was locked. On opening the bank on 05/11/2002, all the locks were found to 4 be in good condition, the locks did not appear to have been tampered with by anyone and no outside person was found entering in the bank. It was also alleged in the report that out of the above missing amount of Rs. 13,99,190.00, only Rs. 80021.64 was found in the safe. One key of the cash safe was with Assistant Manager Sunil Shrivastava and the other key was with Chief Cashier (Executive) Shri Bernard Kerketta. It was suspected that some bank employee had committed embezzlement. Based on the report, an FIR under Crime No. 630/02 was registered against Assistant Manager Sunil Shrivastava and Chief Cashier Executive Bernard Kerketta of UCO Bank Charoda by Police Station Old Bhilai under Sections 409, 34 IPC and the case was taken into investigation. During investigation, the police arrested accused/respondent Ramesh Kumar Bunkar, employee of the UCO Bandk & Jailal Nishad and Sahdev Ram & recovered the amount of Rs.12,20,400/- from the possession of the accused/respondents and upon finding the evolvement of the accused/respondents in the crime in question, a charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court. 4. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/ respondent Ramesh Kumar Bunkar under Sections 457, 380 of IPC and against accused/respondents Jailal Nishad 5 and Sahdeo Ram Yadav under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC. 5. Before the learned trial Court, prosecution has examined as many as 35 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In defence, 04 witnesses were also examined to substantiate its case. 6. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 30.01.2017 acquitted the accused/respondent Ramesh Kumar Bunkar from the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC & accused/respondents Jailal Nishad and Sahdeo Ram from the offence under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.2017, the State filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions and the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 31.03.2018, dismissed the appeal of State/applicant in CRR No.886/2018. Hence, the CRR No.733/2018 filed by the UCO Bank and CRR No.886/2018 by the State against accused/respondents. 7. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant in CRR No. 733/2018 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate for the State/applicant in CRR No. 886/2018 jointly submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by both the 6 the Courts are against facts and circumstances of the case as well as against law, as such the same are liable to be set aside. The prosecution witnesses have categorically stated against the accused/respondents and the prosecution has duly established this fact that the accused/respondents have committed theft in the bank because by recovering the duplicate key and bundle of notes from the custody of the accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that both the Court have failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and the learned Appellate Court also did not consider all grounds of appeal and mechanically passed the order acquitting the accused/respondents. Thus, the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the accused/respondents may be convicted. Learned counsel also submit that huge amount of public is involved in this case and the accused/respondents have committed grave offence, as such, they are liable to be convicted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bunkar, respondent in person, supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal submit that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and 7 the Appellate Court also minutely appreciated all grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel further submit that looking to the limited scope of interference in revision petition, both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders of both the Courts and record of the learned trial Court. 10. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against accused/respondent Ramesh Kumar Bunkar & under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC against accused/respondents Jailal Nishad and Sahdeo Ram. 11. The learned trial Court having minutely appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded its finding that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that any kind of house-trespass was committed by the accused/respondents. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that all the doors, lockers and locks were intact and were not tampered with. The ingredients of Section 441 of IPC with regard to entering into property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence has not been found to be proved against the accused/respondents by the prosecution beyond 8 reasonable doubt. 12. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated statement of other witnesses who are bank employee and independent witnesses and recorded its finding that the memorandum and seizure were not prove in accordance with law, and the prosecution also did not file original documents pertaining to the case and thus acquitted the accused/respondents from the charges levelled against them. The learned Appellate Court also considered all grounds of appeal and by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the State and the UCO Bank. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence 9 may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 14. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition of Mallappa (supra) in the present case as well and looking to the statement of witnesses and finding recorded by the learned Courts, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness 10 in the impugned order or not. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal revisions preferred by the State and the UCO Bank are bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.01.30 17:03:48 +0530