IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREs AT JABALPUR. • 41 • • APEPELLANTs •^H.. "M^se. Cr, Case No. G^ (X_ /199§> Cr. Appeal No. \\\ s /4999-2e,^^ S-feate of N«P«throughPollce Station Sonbat District Koria (M.p.). V/s RBSPGNDENTSi 1,<$ Mahendra Nath 8/0 Premshankar» aged aboa-fc 52 years R/o Village Baikuntbpur PoljLce Statioia BaikuBthpur, 3>\^ .\S,G'Y%A 2. ^ Sttaram S/o Jtiatram, &-ged 45 years R/o Village Katfogodi Police Station Sonhat. CS>\^ . ^cra-c-ssv , 5. ^ Anwarulhii^ S/o M©hd< Ishaq aged 36 years R/o Village Baikunthpur Poliee Station Bailmiathpur. -3>'\^~.^o-5-%j< ^,4. ^Durgaprasad S/©Radheshyam, a ged 55 years R/o Vlllage Kathgodi Pollce Station SoEihat ^&H^ »^GT%-<\ 5/«/^^eelkanth S/o Shrldhar Kulkarni, aged ^O years R/o Vlllage Bailcuntbpar y ^ ^. ^ c ^ -)/<^ '<^'l^\^f :^^ '^ Police Statlon Baikunthpur Distrlct ata^Jl^ A£PLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL U/s 578(5) AND APPEAL U/s 578(1V OF Cr.P.G« ,.^^£^^ u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1113/2000 APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS RESPONDENTS Mahendranath and others. Shri Akhti Mishra Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri A.K. Prasad counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri A.N. Pandey counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Mahendra Dubey counsel for respondents 3 and 4. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (I 1 OF THE CODE OF CRIIVIINAL PROCEbURE; JUDGMENT (21.04.2010) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 10.5.1999 passed by Chief Judidal Magisfrate, Baikunthpur, Sn Criminat Case No. 30/1986 acquitting the respondente/accused of the ofFence punishable under Sections 420,409, 468,471-A and 120-B IR^. 2. Brief facts of the case are that under the scheme introduced by State Government commonly known as Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP for short) two milking animals (cow and/or buffalo) were to be distributed to the beneficiaries. Further case ofthe prosecution is that though on paper, number of beneficiaries have been shown to have received the milking animals but in fact they have not received ttie same. It is stated that on the arrival of Prime Minister in the area, some complaint was madetohim. Subsequently, an enquiry wasdirectedto beconducted by Assistant DSrector, Agriculture namely Bhatron Prasad Khare (PW-09). In the enquiry, it was found that number of benefiiciaries have not received the milking animals and thereby respondents/accused have committed an offence under various sections, Further case of the prosecution is that at the relevant time respondent No:1 Mahendranath was the Branch Manager of the Regional Rural Bank, respondent No.2 - Sitaram was th© Gram Sewak under the Agriculture Department and respondents 3 and 4 were the villagers acting as mediators. In some of the cases respondent No.3 was the vendor ofthe animals and deceased/accused - Hansraj was also involved in the commission of the offence whereas deceased/respondent No.6 Neelkanth was the Veterinary doctor who had ,^y;s%,. IS.. 'l "% r lafc i .% • ~^^ .^ .^' y^ ^^—^y^:: ^, -2-— issued the health certificate in respect ofthe milking animals. It is alleged tiiat during the enquiry conducted by Bhairon Prasad Khare (PW-9), one Nand Kumar Sonpakar (PW-8) did the physical verification of the animals and found that animals were not distributed to the beneficiaries. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondente guilty the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they pleaded their innocence and false jmplication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondents/accusedofthe charges levelled againstthem. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basjs of material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused for the offences mentioned above but having ignored the evidence available on record it has fallen in a grave error of law in awarding acquittal to ttiem. He submits that despite the fact that Bhairon Prasd Khare (PW-9) and Nand Kumar Sonpakar (PW-8) have supported the case of the prosecution, merely on the basls of detailed enquiry conducted by Bhairon Prasad Khare (PW-9) the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused. Accordtng to him in a case of mass cheating where number ofvillagers have been cheated and even if the villagers so cheated have not deposed anything against ttie respondents/accused, merely on that basis they ought not to have been acquitted. He submits that reportofthe enquiry officer ought to have been given much weight ignoring the other evidence. He submits that similar is the statement of Nand Kumar Sonpakar (PW-8) where after due verification he has stated that the beneficiaries have not received the milking animals. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused support the impugned judgment and submit that in the present case even the complainant namely Raghuvir has not been examined bytie prosecution and from the record it is clear that he has not made any complaint| whatsoever to anyone on the basis of which the respondents can be| prosecuted. From the record it is clear that he has not made any complaintl whatsoever to anyone on the basis of which the respondente can be prosecuted. It is argued that even the persons who stood surety have not supported the case ofthe prosecution. It is argued thatthe enqulry officer namely Bhairon Prasad Khare (PW-9) has admitted that he was not legally m-.- •;i^ ^ :1 / -s- competent to conduct the enquiry and no beneficiary has made any complajnt before him. It is argued that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1982 whereas the FIR has been registered on 30.10.1985 and there is no reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay in making the so called complaint. It is argued that so called report of Bhairon Prasad Khare is not a part of the charge sheet nor it was produced before the Court at the time of tnal and in the ab^nce of the said report, even if Bhairon Prasad Khare (R/V-9) has sated against the respondents/accused, they cannot be convicted. 7. Star witness Bhairon Prasad Khare (PW-9) has stated in his evidence that from 1979 to 29.9.1989 he was w)rking as Assistant Director, Agriculture and was posted at Gramin Vikas Abhikaran, Ambikapur. He has steted that atthe time ofvisit ofthe Prime Minister, the viilagers of village Katgodi had made a complaint and on verification itwas found that 10 benefidaries had not received the first one animal out of the two for which they were entitled. This witness had conducted an enqulry in which he found that the respondents and other accused persons have committed the offence. This witness has however admitted the fact that he was not the controlling authority as he was not having the charge of that particular area but it was one N.P. Mishra who was having the charge ofthe said area. This witness hasfurther stated that when he visited the area, no complaint whatsoever was made to him. This witn^s h&s however admitted the fact that while giving the loan in favour of the beneficiaries, monitoring card was prepared in four copies - one for the beneficiaries, one for Block Development Offlcer, one to be kept by Bank Manager and one to be kept in the ofRce record of DRDA.Me has stated that during enquiry though the monitoring card was demanded by him. the same was not given to him. This witness has further admitted that he was directed by the Chief Executive OfRcer to conduct the enquiry but no such order has been filed or produced by him at the time oftrial nor the same has been proved. Thus the very basis regarding authorization of Shri Bhairon Prasad Khare to conduct the enquiry is missing Sn the case in hand. This witness has also admitted the fact that at the time of enquiry he had recorded the statements of various persons but names of those persons have not been shown along w4 the challan nor copy of the same has been ftled with it. Similar is the positionwith ttie statement of Nand Kumar Sonpakar (PW-8) in which he has explained the part of the procedure. This witness has however admitted that no complaint was made to him by any of the beneficiaries and no communlcation has been -</- ^ made from the ofRce of the Block Development Officer. Since the complainant has not supported the case ofthe prosecution and has been declared hostile, there remains nothing but for the statement of Bhairon Prasad Khare (PW-9) who had made the enquiry against the accused/respondents. The trial Court has considered the entlre case of the prosecutjon and passed the judgment of acquittal having appreciated theevidence available on record. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of tiie existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the complainant and the trial Court taking one view favoured ttie accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findlngs of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquittinQ the respondents /accused of the offences under Sections 420,409,468,471-A and 120-B IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge /)y