1 2026:CGHC:25022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 862 of 2021 Shamsher Alam S/o Mahammad Shamshuddin Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tikkidiri P.S Ramchandrapur, District Balarampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Bansidhar Yadav S/o Ramdoni Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Neelkanthpur Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balarampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) {Cause Title Taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/06/2026 1 Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2 By this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner setting aside of the judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, 2 Ramanujganj in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2021 arising out of judgment of acquittal dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, Ramanujganj, by which the accused-respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a charge sheet under Sections 476, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC was filed against the respondent No. 2 alleging that from 02.03.1997 till 21.01.2005, he had worked on the post of Panchayat Secretary on the basis of forged marksheets and other documents using it as genuine. 4 Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before March 1997, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary of village Panchayat, Chargarh, and was terminated from service on 28.02.1997, and on the same day, the respondent No. 2 was appointed in his place. The applicant made a complaint at Police Station, Ramchandrapur alleging that the documents like the mark-sheet and the Sanad filed by the respondent No. 2 for securing the employment as Panchayat Secretary was forged and fabricated. After due investigation, the FIR was registered against the respondent No. 2, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was also filed. Charges were also framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC which was denied by the respondent No. 2 stating that he had been falsely implicated in this case. 5 Mr. Sinha submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording the evidence of the parties, held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the respondent No. 2 of all the charges giving him the benefit of doubt, vide judgment dated 18.06.2021. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned appellate 3 Court which also stood dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2021 affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6 Mr. Sinha submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court ought to have convicted the respondent No. 2 as there is ample evidence on record to hold that the respondent No. 2 had used forged documents for securing the employment as Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner has obtained various documents under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which goes to suggest that the documents submitted by the respondent No. 2 are forged one. He has placed reliance on the deposition made by the witness B. Bharti (PW-12), Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Varanasi, who has in clear and categorical terms stated that the marksheet produced by the accused was not issued by them. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the police has duly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available has acquitted the respondent No.2 of the charges which was duly challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Court which also stood dismissed. Even otherwise, the contesting party in this case would be the accused- respondent No. 2. 8 None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of respondent No. 2. 9 The charges against the respondent No. 2 was that he had submitted forged Class 10th marksheet and certificate for securing the employment. The learned trial Court had arrived at a finding that the marksheet was issued by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and the Police got the same investigated from Regional Office, Varanasi which was a wrong 4 step from the very beginning. The accused was a student of R.S.Inter College, Sant Ravidas Nagar whereas, the marksheets were got examined from Ramsajivan Lal Intermediate College, Khamariya,Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi. Even the Principal has given in writing that R.S.Inter College is different from his institute. The Head Office of Education Council is situated in Allahabad and Regional Office, Varanasi is also under their jurisdiction and as such, the verification made by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad would be given the preference. 10 The learned trial Court has further observed that the accused's certificate and mark-sheet were seized on 21.08.2015. However, prior to that, the certificate and mark-sheet had already been examined/verified several times. The documents which were being examined or verified were neither in the possession of the police nor with the Janpad Office or the Education Board. In such a situation, any examination or verification conducted without the original documents was vitiated. The police, the Panchayat, or the Board examined/verified documents which were not even in their possession. Therefore, no conclusion could be drawn that the certificates of the accused were forged. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the petitioner/complainant, Shamser Alam, was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chargarh, who, after a duly conducted inquiry, was found ineligible and was removed from the post. It was he who got the accused's documents examined. The accused was appointed as Secretary in place of the petitioner pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed by the Panchayat. It was because of this animosity that the complainant got the accused prosecuted. The results of various inquiries and verification were placed before the Court, but the examination of the documents itself was not conducted properly. Since the forgery of the documents could not be proved, all related charges, namely forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, 5 using a forged document as genuine, and thereby committing the offence of cheating, also stood unproved. 11 The learned appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, has observed that the petitioner does not fall within the category of ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and at the most, his status could have been that of a whistle blower as the appointment of the accused/respondent No. 2 on the post of Panchayat Secretary has not caused any harm or injury to the petitioner, who was removed from the said post after following the due process of law. Merely because the FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner, does not make him the affected party or the victim and dismissed the appeal. 12 On perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the learned trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and found that the investigation itself was faulty since the beginning and the original copy of the documents which were sought to be verified were not even in possession of the police authorities, the Janpad Office or the Education Council. When the very foundation of the FIR was vitiated, the further investigation and the charge sheet also gets vitiated and as such, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the respondent No. 2 of the charges. This Court also concurs with the finding of the learned appellate Court that the petitioner is not the victim in this case and his task was over as soon as he had given the information with regard to the alleged wrong doings of the respondent No. 2. It is further interesting to note that prior to appointment of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was holding the post of Panchayat Secretary and when he was removed from service, and the said post was given to the respondent No. 2, it would naturally give rise to a feeling of animosity because of which the complaint was made against the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner. 6 13 This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court were fully justified in passing the orders which are under challenge in this revision petition and as such, this revision petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 14 Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Bhola / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.21 13:12:57 +0530