Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
Indrajeet Singh Solanki, S/o Gulab Singh Solanki - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRA No. 712 of 2007, CRA No. 767 of 2007, CRA No. 713 of 2007
Decided On : 12-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and prosecution case details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by appellants regarding the lack of evidence and procedural errors. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and necessity of due process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal standards regarding proof must be rigorously adhered to. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. final judgment and orders regarding acquittal. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. All the appeals arise from a single impugned judgment accordingly, they are heard collectively and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 35/2004. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants - Indrajeet Solanki, Sudarshan Jain and Sudhirkshir Sagar and sentenced them as under:-
| A. Appellant – Indrajeet Solanki | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months |
Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and 6 months & to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months |
Under Section 468 r/w Section 471 r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and 6 months & to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months |
Under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | R.I. for 2 years and 6 months & to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months |
| B. Appellants – Sudarshan Jain and Sudhirkshir Sagar | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months |
Under Section 420 r/w 120B of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and 6 months & to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months |
Under Section 467 r/w Section 471 r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 2 years and 6 months & to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months |
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused Indrajeet Solanki, while serving as Branch Manager of Dena Bank, Industrial Branch, Raipur, in the capacity of a public servant during the period from 12.06.1989 to July 1992, is alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with Accused Sudarshan Jain, proprietor of M/s Jai Durga Stores, and co-accused Sudhirkshir Sagar, the alleged proprietor of M/s Shilpa Enterprises and Alok Kumar Srivastava, the alleged proprietor of M/s Srivastava Traders, with the intention of cheating the bank. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the accused are alleged to have forged documents, used them as genuine, and committed criminal misconduct by abusing the official position of Accused No. Indrajeet Solanki as a public servant.
It is alleged that M/s Shilpa Enterprises and M/s Srivastava Traders were non-existent entities, yet the accused, by falsely projecting Sudhirkshir Sagar and Alok Kumar Srivastava as their proprietors, dishonestly and illegally procured sanction of loans of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Shilpa Enterprises and Rs.50,000/- in the name of Srivastava Traders. By doing so, they fraudulently induced the Dena Bank Industrial Estate Branch, Raipur, to disburse the said amounts on the basis of forged documents. All the accused persons, by impersonating the alleged proprietors of the fictitious firms, procured loan sanctions on the strength of bogus supply bills furnished in favour of accused Sudarshan Jain, proprietor of M/s Jai Durga Stores, without following mandatory legal procedures, without cond
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Public servants convicted of misappropriation and forgery through forged loan applications must be proven to have made false documents and abused their positions, affirming the importance of direct e....
The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and t....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
