Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 696 days in preferring the present criminal miscellaneous petition.

2. The State/petitioner has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 23.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2019, by the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) whereby acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC in connection with Crime No. 45/2005 at Police Station- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant / State submits that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court nonetheless possesses wide powers of re-appreciation of evidence, and where such reappraisal reveals that the findings of acquittal are unjust, perverse or against the weight of evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to reverse the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Appellate Court has grossly erred in law and on facts in acquitting the accused/respondents by misappreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record and by proceeding on erroneous assumptions, surmises and conjectures. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses, except a few, had substantially supported the prosecution case and their evidence regarding illegal misappropriation of amounts collected under the scheme, forgery of documents and fraudulent conduct of the accused/respondents remained unshaken during cross-examination. The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that several witnesses specifically denied their signatures on the disputed documents and categorically deposed regarding forgery committed by the accused/respondents, which constituted sufficient incriminating material to establish guilt. It is further submitted that the evidence of the complainant and beneficiaries was discarded without any cogent or justifiable reason and the acquittal has been recorded merely on the basis of minor omissions and contradictions which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submits that though the scope of interference against acquittal is limited, the appellate forum possesses ample power to re-appreciate the evidence where the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, illegal and contrary to the material available on record. According to learned counsel, the conduct of the accused/respondents clearly establishes dishonest intention, deliberate cheating and fraudulent acts against innocent persons, including members of the tribal community, and therefore the impugned judgment of acquittal being illegal, improper and perverse deserves to be set aside and the accused/respondents are liable to be convicted in accordance with law.

4. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case preferred the present petition, however, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery because the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 696 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned