1 2025:CGHC:54343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1337 of 2025 1 - Eid Mohammad (Died) Through Lrs Nill 1.1 - Sheikh Basar S/o Late Eid Mohammad Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Nandini Township District- Durg (C.G.) 1.2 - Asgari Khatoon W/o Late Eid Mohammad Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Nandini Township District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sahid Siddiqui W/o Motig Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Nandini Township District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sohan Das S/o Late Shri Mehattar Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Deurgaon, Police Station Saja District- Durg (C.G.) (Particulars Of The Parties Not Properly Mentioned In The Impugned Order ) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Applicants : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.10 10:58:46 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 108/2025 whereby, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P/2) which is passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 843/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Eid Mohammad and Others). Hence, this petition. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the present case arises out of a complaint lodged by Late Smt. Bunda Bai in relation to the land situated at Village Arasnara, bearing Survey Nos. 175, 165, and 121, having a total area admeasuring 4.79 hectares. In her complaint, the said Smt. Bunda Bai alleged that her husband, Late Shri Lakhan Das, had executed a Power of Attorney in favor of one Eid Mohammad for the limited purpose of management and supervision of the aforesaid land. It was further stated in the complaint that Shri Lakhan Das expired on 23.06.2010, and despite knowledge of demise, the said Eid Mohammad (now deceased) 3 executed a sale deed in favour of other co-accused persons by misusing the said Power of Attorney, which according to her, had become inoperative after the death of her husband. 4. Upon the said complaint, the Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg, registered FIR No. 82/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents. 5. After registration of the FIR, the investigating agency completed investigation and filed a charge sheet before the competent Court. The accused persons, including the present petitioners, denied the allegations and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case and produced documentary evidence. 6. After a full-fledged trial and due appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court, vide its well-reasoned Judgment dated 09.05.2024, recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the Power of Attorney had been duly executed by Late Shri Lakhan Das in favor of Eid Mohammad, and that no element of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation was established. Accordingly, all the 4 accused persons were acquitted of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. 7. During the pendency of the trial, the original complainant Smt. Bunda Bai expired, and therefore her testimony could not be recorded before the Court. Subsequent to her death, one Soham Das claimed himself to be the legal heir and successor of Late Lakhan Das and Smt. Bunda Bai, and on such assertion, he preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 108/2025 before the learned Appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal. 8. The learned Appellate Court, without there being any new or additional material evidence and without appreciating the findings of the learned Trial Court in their proper perspective, proceeded to set aside them judgment of acquittal and remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. Hence, this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned court of 7th additional sessions judge has no power to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 2 as he has no right to move an appeal as he is not the victim and he has not obtained any leave to file the above appeal. The learned court below has exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudication of the above appeal as only high court has power to adjudicate the acquittal appeal as per the old CrPC and new BNSS. The learned court below has not properly considered and interpretated the section 413 of BNSS and 5 over looked the provision of the section 419 of the BNSS. He further contended that the learned Appellate Court failed to consider that the trial proceedings had already continued for a period of more than twelve (12) years, during which all relevant witnesses were examined, and the learned Trial Court had passed a detailed, reasoned, and well-analyzed judgment dated 09.05.2024. The remand of the case for a de novo trial, after such a long lapse of time, causes serious prejudice to the petitioners and defeats the very object of speedy justice. He further contended that the prosecution utterly failed to establish that the accused persons had ever executed false or fabricated documents. The evidence on record, both oral and documentary, clearly demonstrated that the Power of Attorney in question was lawfully executed by Late Shri Lakhan Das in favor of Eid Mohammad, thereby validating the subsequent sale transactions. The complainant Smt. Bunda Bai, unfortunately expired before her examination-in-chief, and therefore, no part of her statement could be recorded before the Trial Court. In the absence of her substantive evidence, the complaint loses its evidentiary value, and no reliance could have been legally placed upon her untested allegations. The learned Trial Court, after analyzing the deposition of Akhileshwar Puri (PW-2) a witness to the documentation, rightly recorded that Eid Mohammad had paid an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant towards the land transaction, and that this material fact was concealed by 6 the complainant herself. This finding demolishes the allegation of cheating or fraud. It is therefore prayed that kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 108/2025 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G) and acquit the applicants from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court in Para-19, it is crystal clear that the trial Court has never issued summons to substantial witnesses, therefore, the appellate Court has remanded back to the trial Court to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing and giving opportunity for cross examination to the accused. 7 13. Looking to the entire evidence adduced the applicants on this point. The learned appellate Court has rightly passed the order. I do not find any infirmity and perversity and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the appellate Court. 14. Accordingly, the instant revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant