-1 2025:CGHC:45593 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 01.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 08.09.2025 CRA No. 1481 of 1999 Kailash Agrawal, son of Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 42 years, resident of B-7, Sector-2, Devndranagar, PS- Khamtarai, Raipur ---- Appellant Versus The State ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of conviction dated 18th May 1999 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No.3/1985 whereby the learned Special Judge convicted appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 120-B of IPC, Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced him as below:- Conviction Sentence Section 420 of IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further RI for 03 months Section 468 read with Section120-B of IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further RI for 03 months u/S 5 (1) (d)/5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 r/w Section 120- RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further RI for 03 months SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI -2 B IPC All sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is that co-accused Bhalchandra Sane during the period from 17.8.1977 to 17.12.1981 was posted as Assistant Manager (Depot) in Food Corporation of India, Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur. Co-accused Sabarmal Agrawal (since deceased) was working as Contractor. Co-accused Satyanarayn Agrawal was Power of Attorney Holder of Contractor and appellant was representative. All the accused persons with intent to extend unlawful gain to Contractor Sabarmal Agrawal (since deceased) entered into criminal conspiracy, prepared forged work slips under Item No.21, accepted payments to the tune of Rs.7,398-14 paise. After getting knowledge of irregularity, inquiry was ordered by District Manager Mr. Khodkar, to be conducted through MRC Paniker (PW-10) and Shri P.V.H. Venkatraman. Both the employees conducted inquiry, inspected daily diary register and gunny register, submitted its report based upon which, information was sent to CBI Jabalpur and thereafter FIR bearing No. RC 24/81 was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1947. 3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 420, 468/120-B of IPC, Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1947 read with Section 120 B of IPC against the appellant to which he denied. Prosecution to prove charges levelled against the appellant examined S.S.C. Madan as PW-1, D.S. Ranade as PW2, B.M. Tejpal as PW-3, A.D. Manikpuri as PW-4, J.S. Nayak as PW-5, Praveen Kumar as PW-6, K.K. Krishnan as PW-7, MRC Paniker as PW-8, K.Ramaswamy as PW- -3 9, S.L. Arora as PW-10, MG Agrawal as PW-11, K.P. Ramchandran as PW-12, Hariprakash Tahalyani as PW-13, KKS Pillai as PW-14. After conclusion of trial, learned Court below convicted the appellant for the offence alleged against him and sentenced him in the manner as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that conviction of the appellant is without any proof. Prosecution failed to prove the charges against him by producing cogent and reliable piece of evidence. Allegation against the appellant is that appellant has obtained payment twice for one and the same work. Appellant is stated to be representative of the Contractor who executed the work under the contract entered into between the Contractor Sabarmal Agrawal (since deceased) with the FCI at Mandir Hasaud depot. As per contract, along with work to be done for which Contractor was engaged, Contractor is also required to supply casual labourers as and when demanded by FCI. Department maintains two registers one as Work Done Register and another Casual Labourer Register. For work done, work slips and bills are to be submitted under Item No.21 whereas for supply of casual labourer the work slip issued and bills submitted is under Item No.24. Both the registers are not placed in evidence by the prosecution. Entire case of prosecution is based on daily diary which is maintained by the Shed In-charge not in official capacity but in personal capacity for his memory. Person/Shed In charge who prepared the daily diary/register is not examined before the trial Court to prove the entries made therein. Inquiry Officer who conducted inquiry in his statement stated that he cannot say that daily diary inspected by him is one and the same which is shown to him before the Court. He has not made any initial/signature -4 at the time of inquiry in the daily diary/register. The other witnesses examined by prosecution in their statement stated that according to FCI Manual, there is no provision for maintaining daily diary. Hence, it is not authentic document to be relied upon to prove charges levelled against the appellant. Judgment of conviction against the appellant is without clinching and admissible evidence. 5. Learned counsel for respondent- CBI opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant would submit that judgment of conviction passed against the appellant is based on evidence available on record. Learned trial Court on appreciation of documentary and oral evidence had found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. SSC Madan (PW1), Zonal Manager, was examined to prove the sanction given by him for prosecution of Rawla Jadhav. D.S. Ranadey (PW2) was examined to prove that co-accused G.D. Mahadik, R.S. Jadhav and B.N. Sane were working on different posts at FCI Mandir Hasaud during the period in between 1977 to 1981. A.D. Manikpuri (PW-4) proved his signature on the work slip and bills of the appellant and other co-accused persons. MRC Paniker (retired Assistant Manager) examined as PW-8. In cross-examination this witness stated that he cannot state as to who prepared the daily diary register but stated that daily diary register is prepared by Shed In-charge. In daily diary register, there is signature of Shed In-charge in many pages and in -5 some pages, there is no signature. He inspected daily diary register during inquiry but his signature is not there in daily diary register. He further stated in para-11 that it is not in his memory whether he has seen the work done register. K.P. Ramchandran is examined as PW-12. In his evidence, he made statement with regard to procedure for submission of bills payment and procedure to be followed at different stages. He further made statement in his evidence that the bills submitted under Item No.21 was 208% above the rates. In cross- examination he stated that when the bills were placed before him and checked by him, there was no error. Objection was raised only during audit stating that there was excess payment in all bills and all the excess payment has been recovered. Hariprakash Tahalyani is examined as PW-13. In cross-examination this witness stated that in FCI manual there is provision of maintaining Casual Labourer Register and proforma is provided under Rule 27 (8) of the Manual. Casual Labourer Register is also maintained in Mandir Hasaud FCI depot wherein it is mentioned that for which work, the labourers were engaged and further in the register, there is column for entering the work slip number with date. In para-8 of his deposition he stated that under Item No.21, the work is of opening of gunny bags, bundling, transporting, loading and unloading. In FCI manual, there is no provision for maintaining daily diary but it is being prepared for convenience. KKS Pillai is examined as PW-14. In para-2 of his deposition, he stated that CBI seized the documents from him. Work which is done by casual labourers is entered in the register maintained in office. He also admitted that the godown In-charge maintains the daily diary for his personal knowledge and memory. There is no provision for maintaining -6 daily diary. He also admitted that in FCI Mandir Hasaud, work done register is also prepared wherein it is entered as to what work has been done by Contractor. Employees of the FCI who came to inquiry/audit, upon asking, he provided register which are work done register and casual labourer register. No person was sent for physical verification of gunny bags and they have not done physical verification of gunny bags personally. 8. From the aforementioned evidence brought on record by prosecution it is apparent that, at FCI Mandir Hasaud they are required to prepare and maintain two separate register i.e. work done register and casual labourer register. In work done register entries of the work done by Contractor is to be maintained and in casual labourer register, entries with regard to labourers supplied casually and work for which he is engaged is to be maintained. The allegation is that the appellant by entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused has submitted the forged work slip under Item No.21, accepted payment, for same work which was done against Item No.24 i.e. supply of casual labourers and also accepted payment. 9. The entire case is based on daily diary/register which is not maintained in accordance with the FCI Manual but it is prepared and maintained by the Shed In-charge for his personal convenience and memory and therefore daily diary / register is not authentic register prepared and maintained under the FCI manual. The case is registered based on inquiry report stated to have been submitted by MRC Paniker (PW-8). In his evidence this witness in para-10 stated that he is not in a position to make statement whether the register “A” and “B” are the same registers -7 which were inspected by him during inquiry and similar statement is made with regard to work slip. He further stated that he is not remembering whether he inspected work done register and casual labourer register. Daily diary is also not proved by person who prepared the daily diary. More so when MRC Paniker (PW-8) who conducted inquiry admitted in his evidence that he has not put any initial/signature in the daily diary/register during course of inquiry, charges levelled against the appellant that he prepared work slip, submitted bill, accepted payment under Item No.21 which was not done by him is not proved in absence of work done register, placed on record as documentary evidence. The evidence of excess payment may be for other reason, when it is evidence of prosecution witnesses that the work slip is submitted for payment above 208% of the rate. It is settled law that the suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. 10.Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Datar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab reported in (1975)4 SCC 272, held thus:- “3. It is often difficult for Courts of law to arrive at the real truth in criminal cases. The judicial process can only operate on the firm foundations of actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve, the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime, of patricide. They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidence of it on record. If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution closes to rest its case are so brittle that they crumble when subjected to close and -8 critical examination so that the whole super- structure built on such insecure foundations collapses, proof of some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to merely defective evidence cannot avert a failure of the prosecution case.” 11. In case of Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under “12. Suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between ,may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We have already seen that the prosecution not only has not proved its case but palpably produced false evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant let alone beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant and he alone committed the offence. We had already allowed the appeal and acquitted him by our order dated April 12, 1993 and set the appellant at liberty which we have little doubt that it was carried out by date. The appeal is allowed and the appellant stands acquitted of the offence under section 302 I.P.C.” 12.If in the light of aforementioned ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court, facts of the case at hand is tested would show that case of the prosecution is based on submission of work slips and bills for one and the same work for which the Contractor withdrawn the amount twice. Case was reported to CBI based on inquiry report. Inquiry report is not part of the record. MRC Paniker (PW-8) had made statement before the Court, he cannot say that daily diary/register and work slip inspected by him and shown to him in the Court are one and the same. He has not put initial/signature in the daily diary at the time of inspection during inquiry. Author of the daily diary/Shed Incharge is not examined as witness -9 before the Court. Work done register and casual labourer register maintained by the department according to FCI manual is not brought on record as documentary evidence and further that there is no provision of maintaining daily diary. To prove that appellant submitted bills twice for one and the same work, one under Item No.21 and another under Item No.24, production of work done register under Item No.21 and Casual Labourer Register under Item No.24 are important documentary evidence which was not produced before Court. 13.In the aforementioned facts of the case,nature of evidence available on record, I am of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges that appellant prepared forged work slip and withdrawn the amount twice for one and same work. 14.For the foregoing reason, finding recorded by learned trial Court that prosecution proved the charges levelled against the appellant under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 120-B IPC , Section 5 (1) (d) / 5 (2) of the Act of 1947 read with Section 120-B IPC is not sustainable. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction dated 3.5.1999 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-