•^ ^.\^ IN THEJjIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH MCrC ^: ? p^) Qf 2001 Cri. A. No.l'^<//0f 2001 APPLIC^NT APPELIANT The State of Chhatfcisgarh '' -^)-' ^[- Versus NON-APPLICJ^I'F RESP03SDENTS ^•' J^-'' .^>' ^•y ^..•' Y-' ^•'y' ~r'> .^" ^ \0^ ^ Sarju aged ab.out 65 Yrs< S/o Suklal Sahu, r/o village Thuha Navagaon P.S.Kurud,Distt < Dhamtari 2. B..R.Kosaria aged about 58 years S/o Soradhu Kosaria^ r/o Kodebod, P.S•Kurud^ Distt < Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ^ ^ ^ APPLICATION FOR GRANT QF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER_SECTIpN_ 378(3) AND MEMO OF APPEALJUNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL <.- PROCEDURE, 1973 A>;^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR Si'ngle Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Ju^tic®Pn'tlnker DiwQker CrjminQl AppeQl No. 1184 of 2001 APPELLANT The Stcrte of Chhattisgarh Versus NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Sarju son of Suklo} Sahu and another. Shri ^khii.Mishra, Dy. ^.A. for the State/appeljant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma; Gounse! for the r@st3pndent APPLJCATION FOR 6RANT OF L6AVE TO APPEAl UNbER SECHON 378 (4) OF THE CODE OF eRIMINAL PRQCEbiaE- OR DER (07.04.2010) The present oppea! arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.11.2000 passed by Judicial MagistrGte, Fjrst Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 827/1999 oicqultting the respondents/accused for the aljeged offences punishabie under Sections 419,420,468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indjo-n Penal Code. 2. Brief focts of the case are that in the year 1984 loan of Rs. 10,000/- wos sanctioned by one Narendra TiwQri, the then Bronch Monager of Regiona! Rural Bank, Bninch Moraud in favour of one Sarju Rom for diggjng the wel! in his field. It is alleged that a!l the paper formalities were completed ond wel! was shown in existence by the accused persons and then in the year 1986 Norendra Tiwari, the then Bronch Manager has further sonctioned Rs.4,000/- was for purchQsing a pump ond for repair of the said well. On 7.5.1986 a written complaint (Ex.P-l) was mad© by the then Branch AAanager R.K. Suptd mentioning in it that the loan wos wrongiy sanctioned in favour ©fSarju Ram and th®so-called wetl is not in ex'stence. Based on this written report-, F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was regjstered on 8.11.1986 and respondents/accused were prosecuted for the offence punishabje under Sections 419.420,468 oind 471 read with Section 34 of the Indion Penal Code. 3. By th©impugned judgment, the learned courl- beiow has acquitted both th.e accused persons for the offences for which they were tried, however, during th@ pendency of the present appeal, the accused/respondent No. 1 Sarju, who was the beneficiary, has expired on 8.2.2009 ond, therefore, present appeaj confines oniy In respect of the respondent No. 2 B.R. Kosaria, who WGBS working as ©romSswak. Hence .th@ present appeol. 4, Counset for the appeliant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled position of law and the court' below hod erred in law in ocquitting the accused perspns, He submits that the courl- below has not correctly Qppreciat'ed the evidence and has given the perverse finding. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondents supporl's the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has utterly faited to prove its case beyond all th©reasonable doubts and even has not proved the signature of the respondent No. 2 B.R. Kosoria on ony of the document. He fur(-h©rsubmits thort- os per the statement of Premtal, it is clear that there exist a well in th®Rjtchen garden of Sarju and, therefore, the entire prosecution co.se is fabrjcated. He furl-her submits that the entire loan amount has already been repajd bythe beneficiary Sarju. 6. I have heard counsej for the portjes and perused the mort'erial otvailabje on record. ^ 7. From the evidence it is clear that prosecLrt-iort hag not produced ony witnesses to prove the signature of respondent No. 2 B.R. Kosaria and furt-her there is no evidence on record to show the involvement of this occused. Moreover, entire loan has already been repaid by the beneficiary Sarju and os per the statement of Premlal (PW-2) there exist a wel! in the field of beneficiary. 8. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court below had arrived to a conclusion thot the pro$ecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the respondent No. 2 is entitied for acquittd. 9. After heoring counse! for the parl'ies and going through the evidence available on record oind being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence !ed by the prosecution and the tnal Courl- taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittcil by the oppellflEte Courl" taking the other possible vlew jnto considerotion, is not permissible jn law, this Court' is of the view thdEt the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent No.2/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 419,420,468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IndJotn Pena! Code, is just and proper ond does not call for any interference by this Courl-. 10. For the reasons oforementioned, there is no merit in the present cose and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge