State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chamrulal Agrawal

Since both the above acquittal appeal and criminal revision have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 30-8-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case No.818/1998, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Acquittal Appeal No.140/2016 has been preferred by the appellant / State against the impugned judgment acquitting accused Chamrulal Agrawal of the charges under Sections 420 & 467 of the IPC.

Cr.Rev.No.7/2004 has been preferred by the complainant – Kailash Agrawal under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC against the impugned judgment seeking award of sentence to accused Chamrulal Agrawal.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti by judgment dated 30-8-2003 has acquitted accused Chamrulal Agrawal of the offences under Sections 420 & 467 of the IPC against which acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State and criminal revision has been preferred by the complainant.

Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant – Kailash Agrawal, and Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused by recording a finding which is perverse to the record.

On the other hand, Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the accused, would support the impugned judgment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

Mutation in Nazul record was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti on the basis of unregistered documents produced by the accused which was assailed by the complainant before the Court of Additional Collector, Korba and in turn, before the Commissioner, Bilaspur and the order of the SDO was set aside by the said Courts and on 9-2-1992, the complainant filed report Ex.P-2 before the police station and the offence was registered. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the document being forged has not been proved and therefore acquitted the accused against which this acquittal appeal and criminal revision have been preferred.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the document in question has not been found to be forged by the learned ACJM and one of the plausible views the ACJM has taken and in view of the well settled law that one view as taken by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the appellate Court unless it is found that the view taken by the court is illegal or perverse, I hold that the criminal revision and the acquittal appeal both sans merit and accordingly, they are dismissed having no merit.