[2025:RJ-JD:53286]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 482/1996

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Sataynarain S/o Deep Lal R/o Nani Gali, Udaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati}

Mr. Ravindra Singh} AGA

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

08/12/2025

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.06.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal Case No. 236A/1984 (381/88), whereby the accused-respondent, Satyanarayan, was acquitted of the charges under Sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the

State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Leave to appeal was granted in the year 1996. The appeal, however, has remained pending before this Court for an inordinately long period, and it is noticed that for several years there has been no effective representation on behalf of the

accused-respondent.

3. I have has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and has minutely examined the entire material available on

record.

3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the accused- respondent was involved in the fraudulent encashment of three forged bills dated 25.05.1976 for amounts of ₹6,500/-, ₹7,500/- and ₹8,000/- from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Udaipur. The alleged irregularities surfaced during treasury verification, which revealed that no corresponding authorization or official record existed for the said bills. Consequently, an FIR was registered and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, leading to the trial of the accused for offences under Sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 IPC.

3.2. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of its case. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, categorically denied all allegations, pleaded false implication, and adduced defence evidence by examining two witnesses and producing documents in rebuttal. Upon a detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal.

3.3. On an independent and careful reappraisal of the entire evidence, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court. While it stood established that the bills in question were forged, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent-accused was the person who had forged the documents, appended the disputed signatures, or fabricated the official seals and endorsements. There was no conclusive evidence to attribute the handwriting or signatures on the disputed bills to the accused, nor was his direct involvement in the act of forgery established.

3.4. The prosecution further failed to substantiate that the accused had impersonated Mangi Lal or had personally presented the disputed bills before the bank for encashment. Similarly, the alleged fraudulent receipt of ₹22,000/- was not proved against him. The recovery of ₹7,000/- from the accused’s mother was rightly discarded, as no reliable or cogent link was established between the recovered amount and the proceeds of the forged bills.

3.5. The Trial Court also correctly observed that there was no trustworthy evidence to demonstrate that the accused had forged or misused the seals or signatures of the District Education Officer, the Treasury Office, or the concerned educational institution. In the absence of such foundational proof, the prosecution case rested largely on suspicion and conjecture, falling short of the standard of proof required in criminal law. In these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly held that the charges under Sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The acquittal thus recorded was based on a plausible and legally sustainable view of the