1 2026:CGHC:7775-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 900 of 2025 Sundar Lal Dhoba S/o Late Sahdev Prasad Dhoba Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bodajhariya, Tahsil Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Govind Seth S/o Late Bhaktu Seth Aged About 56 Years 2 - Jaikishor Panda S/o Dayaram Panda Aged About 55 Years 3 - Ashok Seth S/o Gaurchand Seth Aged About 42 Years 4 - Gaurchand Dhoba S/o Late Bhaktu Aged About 62 Years Above Respondents No. 1 to 4 are R/o Village Bodajhariya, Tahsil Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Jagannath Dhoba S/o Govind Dhoba Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Lohakhan, Tahsil Pusaur, P.S. Pusaur, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Chain Kumar Sidar S/o Shaukilal Aged About 54 Years 7 - Lalit S/o Khemkaran Aged About 65 Years Above Respondents No.6 & 7 are R/o Village Bansiya ,Tahsil, P.S. Pusaur, District Raigarh, C.G. 8 - Chandrabhan Garg S/o Late Sureshchandra Garg Aged About 58 Years R/o New Delhi, Delhi, India 9 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondent No.9 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 12/02/2026 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2024 affirming the judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 280/2017, whereby the respondents No.1 to 8 herein have been acquitted of offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The revision is accompanied by an application (I.A. No.1/2025) seeking condonation of delay. 3. Since the revision is barred by limitation, the matter is heard on the question of delay as well as on merits with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sundarlal Dhoba had lodged the complaint before the Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh as well as before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh but no crime was neither registered nor inquired by the police in pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant Sundarlal Dhoba preferred a criminal 3 complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on 23/12/2015 inter alia with the averments that the complainant's mother Gadani (dead) along with Sahdev, Jaydev, Govind, Gaurchand and Saraswati had joint property at village Bodajhariya, Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh bearing Kh.No. 78/1, 150, 149, 213, 343/1, 437/1, 263/1, 178, 291/1, 421/1, 262/1 with area 0.061, 0.101, 0.036, 0.121, 0.089, 0.093, 0.235, 0.154, 0.030, 0.182 and 0.061 Hectares respectively. The father of applicant, Sahdev died on 12/04/2011 and the mother of applicant Gadani died on 14/06/2007. The respondents no. 1 to 8 (accused persons) had conspired to sale the properties of mother and father of applicant by forging the documents and by cheating through personation, have sold the properties belonging to mother and father of applicant through registered sale deed between dated 16/07/2010 and 21/12/2010 by impersonating the deceased Sahdev with accused Ashok and by impersonating deceased Gadani with accused Saraswati (Died) before the office of registrar during the registry of the sale deeds. Thus, the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate has directed the police station Pusaur, District Raigarh, through the memorandum dated 01/03/2016 to lodge a First Information Report Under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and to investigate the matter and to submit the charge-sheet before the court. 5. Thereafter police of police station Pusaur, District-Raigarh, had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 53/2016 dated 06/03/2016 and 4 investigated the crime, in pursuance to that recorded the statements of witnesses, seized the documents from the complainant for which the forgery, impersonation and cheating have been committed and thereafter had submitted the charge- sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on 01/06/2017. 6. The Trial Court had framed charges on 23/03/2023 and proceeded with recording of the prosecution evidence of as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents in support of the case of prosecution and thereafter accused statement were recorded and accused were granted an opportunity to prefer evidence in there. defense and the final arguments were heard and the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22/12/2023 had acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. 7. Thereafter being aggrieved from the judgment dated 22/12/2023 the applicant has preferred the appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the court of sessions, Raigarh. The Sessions court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant by the judgment dated 25/03/2025. Hence this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is doing service in Raigarh and due to some delay in receiving the information for collecting the certified copy of the impugned judgment from the counsel of appellate Court he received the same on 07/04/2025 and thereafter, approached for filing this 5 revision wherein also some delay occurred. Therefore, the delay which is a short period is bona fide may be condoned. He would next contend that the trial Court has not recorded the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and has not afforded the prosecution proper opportunity for recording the evidence. He would next contend that the signature of Gadani Bai is forged. He would next contend that in Ex. P/5 & P/6 the photograph of the father of the applicant Sahdev has not been affixed nor his signature are there. He would lastly submit that the interference by this Court is required and the impugned judgment may be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are well merited which do not call for any interference by this court and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. Having considered the submissions advanced and the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, this Court finds that the applicant has failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation accounting for the entire period of delay. The reasons assigned are general and unsupported by material particulars. No sufficient cause within the meaning of law has been demonstrated so as to 6 warrant exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for condonation of delay. 12. It is a trite law that delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner, particularly when the revision challenges concurrent findings of acquittal. In absence of sufficient cause, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. 13. From the evidence of PW-1 Sundarlal Dhoba, who is the complainant and the principal witness of the prosecution, it emerges that though allegations of impersonation and forgery were made with regard to the execution of the sale deeds, the witness admitted in cross-examination that there existed longstanding disputes relating to joint family property and partition. He further admitted that he was not present at the time of execution and registration of the sale deeds and had no personal knowledge of the actual proceedings before the Sub- Registrar. It also came in his evidence that his father remained alive for a considerable period even after execution of one of the sale deeds, yet no immediate criminal action was initiated during that period. These admissions materially weaken the prosecution case and introduce serious doubt regarding the alleged fraudulent intention. 14. Significantly, despite alleging forgery of signatures and impersonation by affixing photographs of other persons, the prosecution did not examine any handwriting expert nor obtain 7 any forensic opinion to establish that the disputed signatures were forged. No cogent scientific evidence was adduced to prove that the photographs affixed in the sale deeds were not of the executants. The prosecution also failed to examine the Sub- Registrar or attesting witnesses in a manner so as to conclusively establish manipulation in the registration process. In offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, proof of forgery must be clear, convincing and supported by reliable evidence. Mere discrepancy in age or allegation of substitution of photographs, without substantive proof, cannot be treated as proof beyond reasonable doubt. 15. The sale deeds in question are registered documents carrying a statutory presumption of due execution unless rebutted by strong and convincing evidence. The courts below have rightly observed that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of rebutting such presumption. The delay in initiating criminal proceedings, particularly when the transactions took place between 2010 and 2012 and the complaint was instituted after a considerable lapse of time, without satisfactory explanation, further creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations. The evidence also reveals existence of civil disputes relating to joint khata and succession, and the courts below have rightly noted that a predominantly civil dispute cannot be given criminal colour in the absence of clear proof of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. 8 16. The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC, namely fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception and consequent delivery of property, have not been established. Similarly, no independent evidence of meeting of minds or prior agreement has been produced so as to attract Section 120-B IPC. 17. The learned trial Court, after detailed appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 Sundarlal Dhoba, Kanturam PW-2, Dolmani Sidar PW-3 and Praveen Painkra PW-4 along with documentary exhibits including the registered sale deeds dated 16.07.2010, 21.12.2010 and 10.02.2012 (Ex.P/5 to Ex.P/7), the complaint (Ex.P/1), and the death certificates (Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4), recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the acquittal by assigning its own reasons. 18. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on appreciation of the evidence on record and are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The learned appellate Court has independently re-evaluated the material and affirmed those findings by assigning cogent reasons. 19. In revisional jurisdiction, particularly against concurrent findings of acquittal, interference is warranted only where the findings are manifestly illegal, grossly perverse, or result in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the view taken by the courts below is 9 a plausible and reasonable view arising from the evidence on record. Merely because another view may be possible is not a ground to substitute the concurrent findings with a different conclusion. Therefore, this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below is proper and legally sustainable, and the acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents does not call for interference on merits. 20. The courts below have also taken note of the underlying property dispute and the civil nature of controversy. The findings recorded are based on appreciation of evidence and constitute plausible views. No perversity, patent illegality, or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated. 21. In revisional jurisdiction, particularly against concurrent acquittal, interference is warranted only when findings are manifestly perverse or grossly illegal, which is not the case here. 22. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Even otherwise, on merits, no ground for interference is made out. 23. The Criminal Revision under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 stands dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. SD/- SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu