1 2025:CGHC:40083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2017 Purendra Narayan Pandey S/o Late Shri Sutikshan Prasad Pandey, Aged About 813 Years R/o Shaktipara Balodabazar, P. S. Kotwali Balodabazar, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11/08/ 2025 1. This revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges the impugned judgment dated June 30, 2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2017. The Sessions Judge upheld the judgment dated November 29, 2016, passed by the Chief Judicial SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.12 12:01:32 +0530 2 Magistrate, Balodabazar, in Criminal Case No. 1261/2014, convicting the applicant under Section 205 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the court and fined Rs. 10,000, with default sentencing to simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 28/09/1991, the accused, Malikram, son of Dularam Sahu, aged 51 years, resident of Dhelki, appeared in court impersonating one Rajaram and obtained the fraudulent bail of one Raju. However, Rajaram had passed away on 05/06/1989. Further, Advocate’s clerk Purendra alias Surendra Pandey, son of S.P. Pandey, aged 28 years, resident of Purani Basti, Balodabazar/applicant, falsely identified Malikram in court as Rajaram, son of Tulai Sahu, and affixed his signature on the bail bond and affidavit. Consequently, at the Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, crime was registered against the accused persons. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the applicant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him 3 in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the applicant of the offenses under Sections 419 and 467 of the IPC. However, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated June 30, 2017. The present revision petition challenges the legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is innocent and wrongly convicted. The offense under Section 205 IPC is not made out, as the applicant's involvement is not proven. The fine amount has already been deposited. The applicant seeks acquittal and setting aside of the impugned judgment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. From perusal of the entire evidence available on record, it is 4 conclusively established that the accused, Malikram, impersonated Rajaram already died to secure bail in Criminal Case No. 2266/92 on 28.08.1991. The bail bond (Ex. P-5) unequivocally bears the declaration and signature of accused/applicant Purendra Pandey identifying Malikram as “Rajaram”. This act of Purendra Pandey was not a mere procedural lapse but a deliberate facilitation of false personation before a judicial authority. His knowing identification of Malikram as Rajaram directly enabled the commission of the offence, and his role in abetting the said impersonation is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned finding of the Trial Court which has also been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 10. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham