2026:CGHC:10082 The date when The date when The date when the the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on is reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

09.12.2025 26.02.2026 -- 26.02.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 09.12.2025 Judgment delivered on: 26.02.2026 CRA No. 820 of 2005

1 - Avinash Pandit, S/o Late Shri Mahabir Pandit, Aged about 62 years, Officer Superintendent, D.R.M.’s Office, Bilaspur, R/o House No. 77/1, New Housing Colony Near Ganesh Mandir, Bilaspur, Present Address- Kasim Para, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus

1 - Union of India through: Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur.

--- Respondent(s)

With CRA No. 830 of 2005

1 - Arun Vasant Bapat, S/o Vasant Vinayak Aged About 42 Years Resident of C-6, Parijat Colony Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

---Appellant Versus

1 - Union of India, Through C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Jabalpur (M.P.)

--- Respondent(s)

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central Bureau of Investigation), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 23/2004. By the impugned judgment, the appellants–accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with Sections 120-B, 420/120-B, 420/120-B, 471 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs. 200/- for each of the said offences. The appellants were further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each offence.

3. According to the prosecution (CBI), during 1994–95 the appellant, in conspiracy with co-accused Avinash Pandit, fraudulently procured sanction and disbursement of an LIC loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Anju Pandit against a fictitious policy. It is alleged that the appellant fabricated policy documents, forged signatures and falsely showed transfer of the policy from Ambikapur to Bilaspur, thereby cheating LIC. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against them accordingly, to which appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and claimed innocence as well as false implication. They did not adduce any evidence in their defence.

5. The learned trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants as detailed in para 2 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in law and on facts in convicting the appellants. The findings of guilt are against the weight of evidence and rest on conjectures and surmises. Material facts, including the lack of authority of the Branch Manager to sanction the loan and the handwriting expert’s opinion not supporting the prosecution case, were overlooked. The impugned judgment is therefore unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the jud