2025:CGHC:56571-DB The date when The date when The date when the the judgment is the judgment is judgment is uploaded on reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

01.09.2025 20.11.2025 -- 20.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 534 of 2018 Order Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Order Pronounced on : 20.11.2025  State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.)

----Applicant Versus  Samaru Ram Rathore, S/o Shri Bhikhariram @ Bhurthuram Rathore, aged about 62 years, R/o village Paasid, P.S. –

Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

---- Respondent For State/Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. For Respondent/accused : Mr. Sumit Singh with Ms.

Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (C.A.V. Order)

By Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The State has preferred the instant revision petition being aggrieved by judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2017 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment dated 11.01.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.846/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) convicting the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused was posted as C.H.M in District Senani Nagar Sena, Janjgir. A complaint was received against the accused/respondent to the effect that the accused/respondent obtained the service on the basis of forged certificate. Thereafter, the matter was inquired by S.P. Goutam and during the course of inquiry, original mark sheet of Class 8, copy of which was attached in the service book, was demanded from the accused/respondent but it was not submitted by the accused/respondent. Thereafter, the photo copy of the mark sheet of 8^th class of accused/respondent was got verified, and it came to fore that the said mark sheet was issued by the Govt. Middle School Katnai, Block – Akaltara and the roll number mentioned in the said mark sheet was found to be of some other student and in the said mark sheet after putting paper on the name, date of birth and father’s name, the accused/respondent mentioned his name, father’s name and date of birth and got it photo copied, therefore, an FIR was lodged against the accused/respondent and the matter was taken into investigation.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and accordingly the charge was framed against him by the trial Court.

4. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. Vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The accused/respondent has assailed the said judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) by way of filing criminal appeal being Cr.A. No.02/2017, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2017 and acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges levelleged against him vide impugned judgment dated 08.12.2017, hence this revision by the State/applicant.

6. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned P.L. for the State/applicant submits that the judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and law points. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the accused/respondent failed to submit the original mark sheet of class 8^th when the demand was raised which