State Of M.P. vs Amratlal

The present revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 has been preferred against the order dt.29.04.2017

passed in Cr.A.No.138/2016 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, thereby affirming the judgment

dt.30.08.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.779/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar, whereby the respondent has been acquitted

for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, and 406 of IPC.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Shri M.Pal, who is the Officer-in-charge of Police Station Ashok Nagar, had lodged the

complaint to the effect that he received an application dt.19.04.1994 from Tahsildar, Ashok Nagar bearing No. Q 9441/15.4.1994 (Ex.P/5), on the

basis of which an FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 of IPC against the respondent and

other co-accused to the effect that co-accused Ramsingh Chainman presented the bill No.174 dt.05.03.1994 to the Tahsil Nazir Ramashankar Vyas

on 16.05.1994 for receiving payment of Rs.24,000/-. The aforesaid bill was a bill of part final GPF for making the payment to the Tahsildar. The bill

was supposed to be entered in the register and thereafter the same was to be sent to the Sub Treasury for necessary check and thereafter for

effecting the payment after verification of the signatures. The bill was subsequently sent to the State Bank of Indore for payment from where Nazir

received the payment in cash. According to the voucher file, the payment was made to co-accused Ramsingh, Chainman. When the statement of

account did not reach the office of District Treasury Officer, a notice was issued to the accused persons on 16.03.1994. Subsequently, it was found

that Voucher No.174 is fake and no such bill for payment was issued by the office. Accordingly, crime was registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 of IPC.

The learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State while making the reference to the evidence on record, submitted that both the trial court as

well as the appellate court heavily erred in appreciating the evidence and therefore the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with. It was

further submitted that on bare appreciation of the evidence, it can be seen prima facie from the date of the document that the accused with the

intention to commit fraud had produced the fake bill, due to which heavy loss has been caused to the State exchequer. The courts below only on the

basis of surmises and conjectures have acquitted the respondents. Hence this revision.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the allegations, it is nowhere mentioned that who committed the forgery. The

respondent did not take any benefit nor he was in-charge of that particular section. As no one was on duty on that day, he has forwarded the bill.

Learned courts below have rightly acquitted the respondent inasmuch as there is no evidence available on record against the respondent. As such, the

courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and granted benefit of doubt. The present revision has no merit and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

The trial court found that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the respondent, inasmuch as there is no ingredient of

cheating made out against the respondent. Shyambabu (P.W.1) in his examination-in-chief has not deposed anything in favour of the prosecution.

Moreover, on inquiry, it was found that the voucher itself was never issued, therefore, allegation of forged signature does not arise. The appellate

Court in its order in para 17 to 21 have discussed the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that no case against the respondent is made

out. The courts below have found that there was no material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence going to the root of the case.

Accordingly, the evidence on record was not sufficient to establish the culpability of the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and record of the case.

We are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court that the prosecution has failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt can not be doubted. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions

drawn on the basis of the record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. Taking into consideration the

reasons assigned on the face of the record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned courts below is

apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of

merits and substance is hereby dismissed.