2026:CGHC:7705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 358 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Premlal Dewangan S/o Shankar Lal Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Director, Yalco Real Eastate And Agrofarming Limited Rajnandgaon 2 - Mamta Kiran Dewangan W/o Premlal Dewangan Aged About 37 Years, Director, Yalco Real Eastate And Agrofarming Limited Rajnandgaon Both R/o Qutr. No. 82, Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Basantpur, Police Station Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Nisha Dewangan W/o Narad Dewangan Aged About 39 Years Director, Yalco Real Estate And Agrofarming Limited Rajnandgaon, R/o Qutr No. 82, Village Sukuldaihan, Police Station Lalbagh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant /State : Ms Supriya Upasane, GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2006 (for short, ‘CGPDI Act’), Rajnandgaon, CG in Special Criminal Case (CGPDI Act) 1 of 2020, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.23 14:10:25 +0530 Acqa 358 of 2024 2 from the offence under Section 420 of the IPC , and Section 10 of the CGPDI Act. 2. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are that the respondents/accused persons are the Directors of Yalco Real Estate and Agro farming Limited, Rajnandgaon (hereafter, called as ‘Company’). The said Company had worked there from 2013-15. The said Company was obtained its registration from the department of labour and staff establishment from the Municipal Council, Dalli-Rajhara, which was valid up to 2016. The constitution of the company, its registration with the Registrar of the Companies, its business transaction, are also not under dispute. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2015, the complainant- Usha Mungankar, PW15 lodged a complaint to the Police of Police Station-Basantpur alleging that she deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Company on 10.03.2021, and also started RD a/c of Rs.200/- per month. Other complainant- Jitendra Pal has also deposited Rs.20,000/- with the Company and the Company issued bonds, against their deposits. After some time, when they demanded their money back from the Company, respondents/accused persons denied to give them the money and asked them to come after completion of the period for which the amount has been deposited. Based on the written complaint Ex.P13, FIR Ex.P12 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the accused person-Premlal Dewangan. During the Acqa 358 of 2024 3 investigation, Police seized the documents with respect to the Company, collected the details of its Directors, seized the bonds issued by the Company to the respective beneficiaries, and depositors, and also joint venture certificates were seized vide Ex.P1, and Ex.P2. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon against the respondents/accused persons. 5. Case was committed to the learned trial Court for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and Section 10 of the CGPDI Act. Accused persons denied the charge framed against them and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge with the accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC also recorded, and after completion of trial and hearing the parties, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused persons from the alleged offence, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, evidence of the prosecution witnesses are Acqa 358 of 2024 4 reliable to convict the accused persons for the offence in question. He would further submit that though some of the witnesses have admitted that they have received maximum amount which they deposited with the Company of respondents/accused persons, but still the amount was remaining which has not been refunded to the complainants. The respondents deceived the complainants by alluring them that they will give double the amount of their deposited amount at higher rate of interest at the particular time, and the complainants have deposited their amount to the Company of the respondents. Respondents have issued bonds, and deposit receipts but then failed to repay the amount to the complainants as per their assurance, and therefore, offence of cheating, as well as offence under the CGPDI Act has been proved, yet, the accused persons have been acquitted, and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of trial Court. 9. PW15- Usha Mungankar, is the complainant in the case, who lodged the report against respondents/accused persons. She stated in her evidence that the Company of respondents issued joint venture certificate Ex.P15, and she was being allured by respondent-1 Premlal Dewangan that her amount would be refunded in double to it, after five years of the date of deposit. She also proved the joint venture agreement Ex.P18, and the joint venture certificate, and Agreement Ex.P6 and Acqa 358 of 2024 5 Ex.P19 were issued to her mother Nirmala Bai Mungankar, PW16. The date of maturity of the deposited amount was 03.03.2017, and she demanded the amount back before the maturity date. In para-12 and 13 of her evidence, she admitted that the entire amount along with entire principal amount and interest has been received by her from the company, and she was not willing to lodge any report against the accused persons. The amount deposited by in name of her mother Nirmala Bai has also been received by her. 10. From the evidence of PW1-Bindu Ram, PW3- Jitendra Pal, PW4- Shatrughan Lal, PW5-Basanti, PW7-Jagesar, PW8-Lekhram, PW9- Kumar Sahu, PW11- Jitendra Kumar Dhankar, PW12- Ramswaroop Gupta, and PW16- Nirmala Bai Mungankar it was admitted that they have received their amount, which was deposited by them with the respondents’ Company. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the persons who deposited their money with the respondents’ Company, held that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt that respondents/accused persons have deceived the complainants by alluring them to deposit their amount to make it double, and intentionally induced them to deposit the money which was not returned to them. But in the present case, the amount deposited by the complainants has been returned to them, and there is no offence of either cheating, or the offence under Section CGPDI Act is made out against the respondents/accused persons. Acqa 358 of 2024 6 11. From perusal of evidence led by the prosecution, and evidence of the witnesses, this court is also of the opinion that the consideration of learned trial Court in the impugned judgment is one of the plausible view, which has rightly been taken by it, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused persons. 12. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC On Line SC 984, has held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 13. Yet in other matter of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in paragraph-25 as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Acqa 358 of 2024 7 Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 14. After considering the material available on record, as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious about the legal position as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kistoora Ram (supra), and Jafarudheen (supra), in an appeal against the acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, and the trial Court taking one view, revert the accused, the version of the finding of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view for consideration, is not permissible in the law. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State, against the accused respondents is hereby dismissed. 16. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma