1 CGHC010130432010 2026:CGHC:29470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 333 of 2010 1 - Deleted (R.L. Bandhe) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 24/02/2023 1.1 - (A) Sunita Bandhe Wd/o R. L. Bandhe, Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Satnami Para, Mundra, Aghanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Kavita Bandhe D/o R.L. Bandhe, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Satnami Para, Mundra, Aghanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Nishant Bandhe S/o R. L. Bandhe, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Satnami Para, Mundra, Aghanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Amit Kumar Bandhe S/o R. L. Bandhe, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Satnami Para, Mundra, Aghanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - (E) Shweta Bandhe D/o R. L. Bandhe, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Satnami Para, Mundra, Aghanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. It transpires from the record that the applicant/accused namely, R.L. Bandhe, has died during the pendency of this revision, therefore, the present criminal revision is being contested by his legal representatives. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2010 arising out of the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 537/2007. 3. As per the prosecution story in brief is that at the time of occurrence of the incident, Nemichand Sahu was the Secretary of Rajiv Gandhi Watershed Mission, Chirko accused Rikhiram was President and the present applicant was P.I.O. Member and accused Ramayan Mandal was the B.D.O. Mahasamund. The prosecution story in short is that in the year 1997 a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- has been sanctioned for construction of Watershed at Village Chirko under the Rajiv Gandhi Jal Sangrahan Yojna. It is alleged that without construction of the water shed the accused persons withdrawn the sanctioned amount, on receipt of the complaint about then same, Project Officer Mahesh Giri directed to Shri A.K. Dattarai, Project Coordinator to make an inquiry in which allegation made in the complaint found to be true, thereafter a written report was lodged and on the basis of the written report FIR has been registered for offence under Sections 420,467, 408, 409 read with Section 34 of IPC and filed the charge-sheet. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467/34 of the IPC however the applicant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. So the learned trial Court after analyzing the material documents and evidence available on record held the guilt of the applicant under Section 409, 420, 467/34 of the IPC and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. 4. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, applicant preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 15.07.2010 partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the applicant from 3 the charges under Sections 420 and 46/34 of IPC but maintained the Sentence imposed under Section 409 of IPC. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has fialed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution during the course of the criminal proceedings failed to produce the report of the Handwriting Expert and in absence of the findings of the hand writing expert with regard to the signatures of the petitioner on the seized cheque books and other documents, cannot be held to be proved by way of evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court and the appellate Court has wrongly held guilt of the applicant under Section 409 of the IPC because responsibility of the withdrawal through the Secretary and the applicant not at all responsible for the aforesaid embezzlement, even the originial cheque was not produced before the court, so case of the prosecution was not duly established against the applicant and looking to the fact that the eptitioenr was taken charge on that very day so it cannot be presumed he having any knowledge regarding the construction of the watershed committee and distribution of the aforesaid amount was joint responsibility with the president and Secretary of the watershed committee, so liability of the applicant for criminal breach of trust cannot be drawn in the light of the material available on record. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is contrary to the law and erroneous and liable to be set-aside by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 15.07.2010, passed by the learned 1st 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2010 arising out of the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 537/2007, and there is no illegality and infirmity in passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the testimonies of PW-1, Mahesh Giri, and PW-8, Vinayak Rao, it stands established that an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- had been sanctioned for the construction of a watershed project in Village Chirko. However, the sanctioned amount was withdrawn without the watershed ever being constructed. PW-4, Nemichand, has deposed that on 07.10.1997, the date on which the accused, R.L. Bandhe, taken charge, he obtained the witness's signatures on two blank cheques and, after about fifteen days, again obtained his signatures on two additional blank cheques. The cheques used for withdrawal of the amount bear the dates 13.10.1997, 15.10.1997, 21.10.1997, 19.11.1997, and 26.11.1997, indicating that the withdrawals were made on the aforesaid dates. The material on record establishes that the accused R.L. Bandhe withdrew the sanctioned amount without execution of the watershed work, for which he is liable to be convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC, and not for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC. 9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the 5 impugned judgment as well as the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The finding that the applicant/accused withdrew the sanctioned amount without execution of the watershed work, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is well supported by the evidence on record. At the same time, the Appellate Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, as the essential ingredients of those offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A certified copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar