1 2025:CGHC:47367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 561 of 2017 1 - Sindhu Das S/o Heeradas Aged About 66 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Dumarmuda, Tahsil Pussaur, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Fakirchand S/o Balram Aged About 60 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Patelpali, Tahsil Pussaur, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Banshidhar (deleted) since dead. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicants (s) : Shri Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 15.09. 202 5 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.92/2015 whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, in Criminal Case No.3405/2009 was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.18 10:32:22 +0530 2 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, the applicants have produced the surety and bail bond for the accused persons Sakhiya @ Premji and Sonu Lal who were arrested in the offence of crime No.202/94 and 204/94, registered at Police Station Sarangarh for the offence under Sections 380, 457 and 34 IPC and they produced their Rin Pustika Nos.P/1077772 and P/1077751 as surety. On being suspicion the said Rin Pustikas produced by the applicants as surety were sent for its enquiry to the Tehsildar, Raigarh and having obtaining a report that it was forged, a written complaint was lodged on 09.03.1995 by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, upon which an FIR Ex.P/1-A was registered against the applicants for the offence under Sections 417,467,468, 471 and 34 IPC. After due process of investigation, the applicants were arrested and charge sheet was filed before the CJM, Raigarh. The trial court framed charge against the applicants for the offence under Sections 417, 467,468 and 471/34 IPC. They denied the charge and claimed trial. 3. After recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and examination of accused persons, the trial court vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the applicants for the alleged offence under Sections 417,467,468 and 471/34 IPC and sentenced for RI for one year, three years, three years and three years respectively to each of the applicants along with fine amount. 4. The applicants challenged their conviction and sentence before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.92/2015 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.05.2017 which is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in the uncorroborated statement of the witnesses as well as without proper enquiry the FIR has been registered against the applicants only on the suspicion. The person who issued the alleged Rin Pustika have not been examined, neither he was interrogated during investigation. Even when enquiry report was called, no enquiry was made from the Tehsildar who issued the alleged Rin Pustika. There is no handwriting expert report that the applicants have prepared the forged Rin Pustika. The Rin Pustika is a document which ought to have been in possession of the concerned Patwari who issue to the land owners after due verification of the revenue records and signed by the concerned Tehsildar. Rin Pustiika is not a general document which is available in open market. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that applicants got prepared forged signature of said Tehsildar who allegedly issued the Rin Pustika. Therefore, there is material irregularity and illegality in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which makes the entire case of prosecution doubtful, yet, only on the basis of enquiry report the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for their acquittal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and have submitted that the allegation against the applicants have been concurrently upheld by the two courts below. The Rin Pustika found in possession of the applicants were found forged in enquiry by the competent authority 4 which cannot be doubted and thus there is no scope of interference in the present criminal revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 8. The sole basis of the prosecution to prosecute the applicants is the enquiry report with respect to Rin Pustika allegedly produced by the applicants before the CJM as surety to the accused persons Sakhiya @ Premji and Sonu Lal. PW-13, Chhote Lal Shrivastava, is the retired Tehsildar who made enquiry of the said Rin Pustika Ex.P/5 & P/6. By his report Ex.P/3, he reported that the said two Rin Pustikas are forged. In his cross examination, he admitted that he has not enquired about theft of said Rin Pustikas. He has not enquired from the concerned Patwari and Tehsildar who prepared the said Rin Pustikas. He made his report Ex.P/3 on the basis of signature available in the office of Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari and after comparing the signatures he made his report Ex.P/3. He has also admitted that he has not sent the said Rin Pustika to any handwriting expert. 9. From perusal of report Ex.P/3, it transpires that there is no detail of enquiry in the said document and it is a cryptic report that the said two Rin Pustikas are forged. 10. PW-1, C.B. Bajpai, who was the then CJM, have also admitted in his cross examination that in the report submitted by the Tehsildar it has not been mentioned that the seals appears in the Rin Pustika is not of his office. It has also not been mentioned that the said Rin Pustika has not been issued from their office. There is no letter annexed in the case 5 which has been issued to the Tehsildar by the court. The letter issued to the Station House Officer for enquiry has also not been annexed with the case. 11. PW-2, Shiv Kumar Yadav, is the Revenue Inspector, who have stated that in the year, 1991 Shri A.K. Tiwari was the Tehsildar and Shri Dular Singh Patel was Halka Patwari of village Dumarmuda. 12. PW-4, M.D. Gupta, who was Patwari at P.H.No.10, village Patelpali, have also stated in his evidence that Shri A.K. Tiwari was the Tehsildar during his tenure. He could not tell about signature of other Tehsildar in the documents Ex.P/6. He also could not tell as to who issued Rin Pustika Ex.P/6. He admits that in the Rin Pustika the entries of Khasra Number and Area of land are to be made by the concerned Patwari. 13. PW-5, Dular Singh, is another Patwari who also disclosed about the procedure for preparing the Rin Pustika and stated that it was not available in the open market and only after paying challan it is issued by the Kanungo and after making application to the Tehsildar and obtaining certificate from all the banks, the Rin Pustika is issued by the Tehsildar. 14. From perusal of evidence of these witnesses, it transpires that there is complicated procedure to obtain Rin Pustika by the land owners which cannot be easily available in the market to prepare it forged. 15. PW-10, S.L. Kanwar, SDOP Sarangarh, have stated that he was being directed to enquire into the Rin Pustika and it was enquired by C.L. Shrivastava, the then Tehsildar, who found it to be forged and then he made his report Ex.P/3 to the CJM, Raigarh. In cross examination, he stated that based on the report of Tehsildar, he forwarded it to the CJM. 6 16. PW-11, Ram Lal is a retired Revenue Inspector, who have stated about the procedure of obtaining Rin Pustika by following the due process of law. He also stated that who issued the Rin Pustika Ex.P/6, he did not know. In the year, 1990 Manu Ram Patwari was not posted, but M.D. Gupta was posted as Patwari. 17. PW-12, Dolmani Rathiya, is another Patwari, who too have stated about the process of issuance of Rin Pustika after due process of law. In cross examination he states that he was not posted there as Patwari in PH No.22 and he could not tell who has issued Rin Pustika Ex.P/5. He admits that in the Rin Pustika Ex.P/5 there is signature and seal of Tehsildar and Patwari. 18. PW-14, Rang Lal is another Patwari who stated in his evidence that in the Rin Pustika, Ex.P/6, the name of Fakirchand is recorded as owner of the land, however, in the original Khasra Panchsala the land was recorded in the name of Basanti and others. Likewise, the land of Khasra No.113 in Khasra Panchsala is recorded in the name of Damrudhar and land of Khasra No.124 is recorded as grassland. The land of Khasra No.127/1 is recorded in the name of Setwar and others. He gave description of land of various Khasra numbers and its owners in Rin Pustika as well as Khasra Panchsala. In cross examination, he admitted that a person can hold more than one Rin Pustika of his land. He could not tell when entries have been made in the Rin Pustika. The record which he has produced is of the year 1994-95 and the Rin Pustika Ex.P/6 is of the year, 1990. He did not tell as to when the said Rin Pustika Ex.P/6 was issued. 7 19. From all these evidences, it is quite apparent that in those Rin Pustikas the seal and signature of Tehsildar A.K. Tiwari was there, however, he was neither interrogated nor any report was obtained from him that it was not his signature. There is no handwriting expert report that the seal and signature of the Tehsildar or Patwari are forged and it was not of that person who purportedly signed those documents. Since the prosecution’s case is based on the said report Ex.P/3 which has been issued by PW-13, C.L. Shrivastava, after comparing the available signature in the office of Tehsildar and Patwari, is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved forgery of Rin Pustika beyond reasonable doubt in absence of any statement or evidence of issuing authority. Since the forgery of the document for the purpose of cheating itself is doubtful and the said Rin Pustika is made in the year 1990 which is allegedly used in the year 1995 i.e. after about 5 years, it cannot be said that it was forged for the purpose of cheating by the applicants. Therefore, the forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the applicants. Likewise, the cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC also is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as all the alleged offences are interconnected. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record, the applicants are entitled for benefit of doubt. The trial court as well as the appellate court has relied upon enquiry report Ex.P/3, which in the opinion of this court, is not sufficient 8 to hold that the prosecution has discharged their burden to prove that it was forged Rin Pustika without any sufficient evidence. 21. Accordingly, by giving the benefit of doubt, the revision filed by the applicants is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2015 passed by the trial court and the judgment dated 24.05.2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, are hereby set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the alleged offences. The applicants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 22. Record of trial court be send back forthwith along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder