.s'—:^ F^^ -ef %^ n? ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Qc. App^No^567/1999 SB: Hoa'ble Shri Justice R.L. JIianwar APPELLANT State ofMadhya Pradesh (Ncw CG) Versus RESPONDENT Gunaram JUDGMEMT Post for judgment on p.08.2009 Sdl-, R.l..-.>fa"w'ar 3ud&e ''-'^'..w^y'' m<m COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Anp. No.567/1999 SB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh(Now CG) Versus Gunaram s/o Sakharam scged. 56 years, R/o Sishak N^ar, Durg, District Dui^. Appearance: Shri D.K.Gwalre, Govemment Advocate for the State/ appeUaut. Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for fhe respondent J UD G M ENT (Delivered ong .08.2009) R-L.Jhaawar, J. Beiag a^rieved, fhe State/appeUaat has preferred fhis appeal agam.st fhe order of acquittal dated 24.8.1998, passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Crimiual Case No.395/97, whereby, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has acquitted the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 aad 419 ofthe IPC. During iavest^ation of crime No. 92/95 registered uader Sections 461 and 380 of the IPC, house of the respondcnt was searched by PoUce. Duiiug search fiaudulent documents and seals were recovered froin fhe custody of the respondent. Therefore, a separate offence under Sections 419, 467, 468 & 472 of the IPC was registered aad the matter was investigated. After conipletion of the iavestigation, charge sheet for coiiunission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 and 419 oftiie IPC Cr. App. No.567/1999 was ffled against the respondent. The trial Court fi-amed charees under Section 420, 467, 468, 472 and 419 of the IPC agaiust the respondent, who abjured fhe guUt aad claim.ed huuself to be imioceiit. The respondent was tried aad the leamed trial Court after evaluating fhe evidence available on record and hearing fhe counsel for both fhe parties, recorded the findiag of acquittal of the respondent and passed judguient dated 24.8.1998. Beiag a^rieved, the State/appellaat has questioned the legaUty ofthe order of acquittal by preferriiig this appeal. The leamed trial Court has recorded the order of acquittal on ftie basis that the seizure raade by the PoUce has not been proved nor it has been established that the aUeged dociunents seized had ever been used fraudulenfly by the respondent. According to prosecution fhe aUcged fl-audulent documents have been seized vide seizure niemo Ex. P/2. Independent witnesses Shankarlal(PW-7) and Mahesh Kumar Wasvani(PW-8) have been produced by the prosecution, but bofh the witnesses have tumed hostile aad have not supported the case of prosecutioD. under seizure luemo Ex. P/2. Althoi^h, Police Constable- Arul Sharma (PW-14) had deposed fhat some Rin Pustika and photographs were found in. fhe Almirah of fhe respondent. B.R.Gautam (PW-1), who made seizure had deposed fhat accordiug to seizure ineino Ex.P/2, he seized surety papers aad certificates ete. But neither Krishna Kumar Savrade(PW-2) nor Ani1 Shanaa (PW-14) gave clear detailed statenients regarding descnptions ofseized ardcles vide Ex. P/2. Haviag considering all fhe above facts, I am of the view that the leamed trial Court did not conunit any illegality while recordiug a findiag fhat the prosecution failed to prove Ex.P/2. Although, wituesses Krishna Kumar Savrade (PW-2), Jaitram (PW-3), Kartikram (PW-4), B.L.Negi (PW-5), R.K.Sharma (PW-6), La?aninafh.(PW-9), Dayarain(PW-lO) and Hariharpuri Goswaini ^^ Cr. App.No.567/1999 --^ (PW-13) have been examiaed by fhe prosecution. But, fiDia their stateiueuts it is clear fhat they were not able to estabUsh that the respondent ia aay way had used the seized documeats so far as raaking of false docuiuents is concerued. Alfhough sonie files and signatures have been sent to the Haadwritmg Expert, but no such report has been ffled aud proved before the trial Court. Therefore, iu fhe absence of aforesaid material, I am of fhe view fhat fhe leamed trial Court did not conunit aay error of law in recordiug the findiag of acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 and 419 ofthc IPC. The order of acquittal recorded by ttie trial Court is confirmed. Thus, I conclude that the order ofacquittal recorded by fhe leamed Magistrate is not perverse or illegal ia this inatter. Accordiugly, fhe appeal stands dismissed. ^ §^/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^i'vnA^a; \,