1 2025:CGHC:55900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 740 of 2019 Bhagat Ram Bareth S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Bareth, Aged About 39 Years Caste Bareth, R/o Village Kumhari, Police Station Baradwar, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shailendra Haldar S/o Harichand Haldar, Aged About 45 Years At Present R/o Sakti Ward No. 4, Police Station Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dulal Vishwas S/o Bijendranath Vishwas Aged About 34 Years R/o Mitrokukur, Police Station Chakda, District - Nadiya ( West Bengal ) At Present, R/o Sakti Ward No. 6, Police Station Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For appellant/State : Mr. Atul Kumar Gabhel, Adv. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Adv. For respondent No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Kamlesh Pandey, Adv. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.11.20 11:30:01 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J ) Judgment on Board 17-11-2025 1. The present Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11- 10-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti (henceforth, referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 556/2013 whereby the respondent No.2 and 3/ accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the CG Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam’). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, both the respondent No. 2 and 3/accused persons without having any valid degree for medical practice, were treating the citizens, one of whom is appellant of instant appeal, who had got treatment of Hydrocele from the accused persons. The appellant had also filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing WP (PIL) No. 31/2012, which was disposed of by learned Division Bench vide order dated 22-2-2013 directing respondent/State to constitute a Committee for all the districts and thereafter appropriate action may be taken by the Committee. Thereafter, a written complaint (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Janjgir Champa to the Police Station, Sakti against accused persons, based on which, FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged against them for the offence under Sections 420 of the IPC. Documents from both the accused were seized vide Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. Spot map was prepared. Both the accused persons were arrested. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. After usual investigation, 3 charge sheet for the offence under Sections 420, 418, 419 of the IPC was filed against them before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti framed charge under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Adhiniyam against respondents No. 2 and 3/accused, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. Prosecution has also exhibited photocopies of various documents marking it as Article A-1 to Article A-17. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication, They have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted both the accused persons of the charges. Hence, the appellant has preferred instant Acquittal Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, both the accused persons were doing medical practice without any valid document, therefore, he had filed PIL, to which, learned Division Bench has directed to constitute Committee and the Committee after inquiry found that the medical certificate held by accused persons were fake, based on that, FIR was lodged by the Block Medical Officer, Sakti and aforesaid fact has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Despite that, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused which is 4 perverse and illegal. Therefore, he prayed that, instant acquittal appeal be allowed and the respondent be convicted for the charges. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3/accused would support the impugned judgment. 8. Learned Govt. Adv. appearing for the respondent No. 1/State would submit that State has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment, therefore, appropriate order may be passed 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the trial Court. 10. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant Bhagatram Bareth claiming himself to be victim. His statement has also been recorded as P.W. 7A, in which he has deposed that, he had taken treatment from both the accused persons, who had assured that, his disease of Hydrocele will be cured. He has further stated that, both the accused had injected/treated him and each of them took Rs. 1,300/- from him, despite that, he could not recover from the disease. But he has not filed any document to substantiate his statement that, he had taken treatment from the respondent No. 2 and 3/accused. Though, he had filed the WP (PIL), but since he has not filed any document to prove his contention that he has taken any treatment from the accused and he is not complainant of instant case, therefore, he is not found to be victim in instant case. Hence, he has no locus to file instant appeal. 11. Even other wise, if merits of the case are seen, then it is found that vide seizure memo Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4, alleged documents were 5 seized from accused persons but it has not been mentioned that, those documents were original. However, various documents Article A-1 to Article A-17 have been exhibited by the Investigating Officer Lambodar Patel (P.W. 8), but since original of the same has not been seized from the accused, therefore, only on the basis of photocopy of the documents, it cannot be held proved that those documents were possessed by accused persons. Having considered the evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in instant appeal. 12. In the result, instant acquittal appeal is dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak