Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Chh) 334

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Suresh Kumar Chauhan S/o Late Lalbahadur Singh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau - Respondent
CRA No. 336 of 2018, ACQA No. 797 of 2024, CRA No. 1539 of 2019, CRA No. 345 of 2018, CRA No. 347 of 2018
Decided On : 13-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Khare, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Priyank Agrawal, Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava. Advocates, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Mr. Manish Nigam and Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General

The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of cheating and conspiracy, including dishonest intent and the specific role of accused in the alleged fraud.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(i)(d), 120-B, 420 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellants for cheating and conspiracy related to substandard material procurement for sluice gates - The trial court acquitted under PC Act and convicted under IPC provisions. (Para 3, 5)

(B) Legal Standards - Conviction under IPC requires proof of dishonest intention and conspiracy must show collaboration amongst accused. The court emphasized that prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the accused's role in fraud, deception, and dishonesty. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellants allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to procure substandard sluice gates causing loss to the state. The prosecution asserted that the materials supplied were not in conformity with relevant ISI standards and that the accused misused their official positions to favor a supplier. (Paras 3, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction, as the prosecution failed to prove that the materials supplied were substandard or that the accused had dishonest intentions. The trial court's decisions were found not to be perverse or illegitimate.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act were justified and whether evidence supported the allegations against the appellants. (Para 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proof of essential ingredients of deception and intention to defraud, the prosecution could not establish the commission of an offence under the sections invoked. (Paras 28, 29)

Result: Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, decisions of conviction set aside. (Para 30)

Table of Content
1. multiple appeals arising from the same fir. (Para 1 , 2)
2. allegations of substandard materials purchased causing loss. (Para 3 , 4)
3. appellants argue against conviction based on lack of evidence. (Para 5)
4. defense arguments regarding insufficiency of prosecution evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. state's opposition highlighting the trial court's considerations. (Para 10)
6. court's analysis focuses on evidence and prosecution failure. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
7. importance of credible evidence for prosecution claims. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 22)
8. witness testimonies highlighting failures of prosecution's case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21)
9. requirement for proving elements of fraud and deceit. (Para 23)
10. defining elements of cheating under ipc. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
11. burden of proof on prosecution and benefit of the doubt for defendants. (Para 28 , 29)
12. final acquittal of appellants on grounds of insufficient proof. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. Since all the Criminal Appeals and Acquittal Appeal are arising out of same FIR and same judgment, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Korba (CG) in Special Criminal (P.C. Act) No. 06 /2007, respectively, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

3. Brief facts giving rise to case as unfolds from the documents available on record are that complainant P.S. Pinjani, proprietor of Raj Hydro Mechanical Construction Company, Berasia Road, Bhopal made a written complaint before State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal and on the basis thereof, complaint case No. 76 of 1990 was registered by Inspector H.N. Guru and on the basis of complaint, FIR (Ex.P-89) bearing Crime No. 28/91 was lodged alleging that Executive Engineer Hasdev Canal Divison No.1, Rampur, Korba had purchased sluice gate and shutters from SK Steel and Mechanical Industries Durg are not as per drawing and design of ISI norms and the materials supplied by them were sub standard and low quality which has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 24 lacs to the State Exchequer. It is also case of the prosecution that during investigation, Assistant Engineer, Public Health Department has conducted enquiry wherein he found that sub standard materials, poor quality materials have been purchased by the appellants from SK Steel and Mechanical Industries despite being an expert on the subject, misusing their official position, hatched conspiracy and caused huge loss to the State, therefore, they have committed a crime. Further prosecution case as reflected from the charge sheet filed by the prosecution bearing charge sheet No. 20/99 is as under:-

(a) Charges levelled against accused A.K. Bhaduriya that he was working as Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Division No.1 Rampur, Korba District Korba and from 1988-1990, he had issued work order through Laghu Udyog Nigam to SK Steel and Mechanical Industry through its proprietor SK Chouhan for supply of 3.5x3.5x2.55x2.55, 3.00x3.5 and 2.75x5.55 meter sluge gate in 19 and 28 number. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that actual value of gate was Rs. 34,21,799/- and value of curry shutter is Rs 36,50,470/- but gates were found to be substandard and of poor quality. The Director Central Mechanical Bhopal has also clarified that as per gate size bearing 3x3.5 shutter the scheme plate was not of 14 mm as per ISI standard. Similarly, horizontal gadder was of IMMC 200 whereas as per ISI standard it should be 225 and roller pin was not CS solid whereas it was CI hosting equipment was not of 10 KG and it was 22 KG, as such the items were not up to the standard of ISI number 4622/5620.

(b)