Virendra Netam, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Vishram Singh R/o Kumharpara, Behind D.V v. Union of India through the C.B.I., Bhopal
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:49377 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 24.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on 26.09.2025. CRA No. 271 of 2010 Virendra Netam, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Vishram Singh R/o Kumharpara, Behind D.V. Gas Agency, Jagdalpur, (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus Union of India through the C.B.I., Bhopal (M.P.) presently through C.B.I. Bhilai Unit, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. K.N. Singh along with Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. CRA No. 275 of 2010 1 - Parshuram Dewangan (Died) through LRs as Per order dated 20-08-2024 1.1 - Smt. Yashoda Dewangan Wd/o Parshuram Dewangan aged about 65 years. R/o 36 / K, Dhaniram Gali, Pathraguda, Bhagat Singh Ward No. 6, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 1.2 - Smt. Shail Dewangan W/o Anil Dewangan, D/o Parshuram Dewangan, aged about 55 years R/o 36 / 1, Dhaniram Gali, Pathraguda, Bhagat Singh Ward No. 6, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus Union of India through the C.B.I., Bhopal (M.P.) presently through C.B.I. Bhilai Unit, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Lonia, Advocate. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgement 1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.G.I.) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (C.B.I.) No. 46/04, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- In CRA 271/2010 Conviction Sentence Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code Under Section 420/120B of IPC Under Section 468/120B of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. R.I. for 2 years and fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of 3 Under Section 471/120B of IPC payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) In CRA No. 275/2010 Conviction Sentence Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code Under Section 420 of IPC Under Section 468 of IPC Under Section 471 of IPC Under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 2 years and fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. R.I. for 2 years and fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the appellants is that the
Decision
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the writ petition (civil) No. 202/1995 dated 07.01.1998 and 30.07.1998 passed by it, had directed the C.B.I. to 4 investigate the entire facts on the basis of interim and final report of Lokayukta (then M.P.) regarding cutting of trees standing on Malik Maqbooja and other Government land in District Bastar (then M.P.). Accordingly, C.B.I. registered First Information Report (Ex. P/20 ‘A’) in this case on 08.12.1998. During investigation of this case, it was found that the accused Brihaspati Lal (deceased accused), accused Dheerpal Thakur ( deceased accused) and accused Virendra Netam, all tribals, village Binjauli were encroaching upon the land as may be clear from the perusal of the charge-sheet, for the reasons best known to C.B.I, except four persons mentioned in the impugned judgement, all other persons i.e., the Additional Collectors of Dantewada namely M.R. Sarthi, Pankaj Raog, M.S. Paikra, Amir Ali, Anuraj Jain and the then M.L.A. Mahendra Karma, erstwhile M.L.A. Rajaram Todem, S.C. Khurana, Srinivas Awasthi & Brijmohan Gupta have not been charge sheeted, although on taking the investigation of the C.B.I. at the face value, the other accused persons may also not be liable to be charged with. Since the offence has been registered, the charge-sheet has been filed against the persons mentioned as accused in the impugned judgment, including the present appellants before the concerned Court of the then State of M.P. The appellant Virendra Netaam has been charge sheeted with the offence under Sections 120B, 420/120B, 468/120B & 471/120B of the IPC, whereas the appellant Parshuram Dewangan has been charge sheeted with the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it has been stated that the appellants have cheated and defrauded the then State of M.P. However, since new State of Chhattisgarh has been carved out, the 5 learned Judge, without altering the charge that not the State of M.P. but the State of C.G. has been cheated and defrauded, by mentioning in brackets (now State of C.G.) has reached to the conclusion about the cheating and defrauding the State of Chhattisgarh and convicted the appellants as stated above. 3. During the course of investigation, the prosecution agency has found that the persons mentioned in the impugned judgment namely Brihaspati Lal Kashyap, Dheerpal Thakur, both have died during the pendency of trial, and the appellants herein have purchased by way of registered sale deed dated 08.11.1988 a land bearing Khasra No. 30/47 area 10.22 acres situated at Village Bijouli, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Bastar. The appellant and one Dheerpal Thakur have executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Brihaspati Lal Kashyap (since deceased) and who has made application for cutting and felling of 277 numbers of trees on 25.04.1989 and the then Additional Collector Shri Manoj Kumar Goel has registered a case in his files and vide order dated 21.06.1989 gave his permission to cut down 150 number of trees to said Brishaspati Lal Kashyap and it has been stated that the Reader of the Additional Collector namely Parshuram Dewangan has altered the number of trees from 150 to 250 and thereafter, accused Virendra Netam, Brihaspati Lal Kashyap (since deceased) and Dheerpal Thakur (since deceased) have fraudulently cut down 250 trees with a common intention to get benefit from the same and then the said trees were submitted to Forest Department by Brihaspati Lal Kashyap (since deceased) to Divisional Forest Officer , Kondagaon (C.G.) and in return, Rs. 9,97,279/- has been illegally 6 obtained by him and as such, a loss of Rs. 3,98,912/- has been incurred to the Forest Department by the accused/appellants and the accused/appellants have availed the benefit of the same amount. Thus, in sum and substance, 100 more trees have been cut down illegally and the same allegedly amounts to an offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence. The appellants having abjured their guilt, subjected to trial. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, the appellants adduced 01 witness. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on record, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals filed by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 271/2010 submits that 7 the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is perverse and not sustainable in law. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that there is no iota of evidence of hatching a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons at any point of time at any place and as per the law narrated above. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination about the involvement of the present appellant in any alleged conspiracy and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is bad-in-law. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that the trees were standing over the ownership land and were fell after taking permission from the competent court and merely more number of trees have been fell, it cannot be said that by such felling, State of Madhya Pradesh or State of Chhattisgarh have been cheated and defrauded or illegal advantage from the properties of the State has been obtained by the appellant herein. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate about the legal significance and effect of execution of the power of attorney in the present case by the appellant in favour of the accused Brihaspati Lal Kashyap and failed to appreciate the fundamental principles of law dealing with principal-agent relationship. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that merely State of M.P. has been carved out and State of C.G.. has come into existence, therefore, the person allegedly cheated changed and in this regard the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the relevant law i.e., M.P. State Reorganization Act, 2000 and other provisions of law. The learned trial Court by changing the figure ‘1’ to ‘2’ by the Reader of the competent Court without therein being any evidence of role to play of the present appellant in such disfigurement, the foundation for conviction cannot be laid. The learned Special Judge ought not to have 8 relied upon un-exhibited document for convicting the appellant and ought not to have stretched its imagination to somehow convict the appellant. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the defence in a legal manner and as per the principles of appreciation of evidence under the Evidence Act. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that there is no long distance between ‘doubt’ and ‘proof’ and in this case the conjectures or far fetched imaginations have played the role of the prosecution agency and that ought to have been discarded by the learned trial Court. The sentences imposed upon the appellant is too excessive to be sustained in the eyes of law. So, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 275/2010 submits that late Parashuram Dewangan is innocent, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad-in-law as well as facts on records. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that PW-06 who has issued the order has not done his signature wherever correction done by him or by his sub-ordinates. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that justification regarding the fixation of quantity to cut down the trees are not explained by PW-06 and the order also not contained any criteria in this respect. As per the prosecution case in WP (C) No. 202/1995, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed an order dated 09.10.1998 and 30.07.1998 for enquiry by the C.B.I. looking to the representation of Lokayukt (then M.P.) in respect of cutting of trees standing on government land. On the basis of that 9 C.B.I. lodged F.I.R on 08.12.1998 and it was found that the accused Brihaspati Lal Kashyap (dead), Dhirpal Thakur (dead) and Virendra Netam purchased the land of tribals. Thereafter, Brishaspatilal (dead) applied for cutting of 277 trees which were standing on filed by an application dated 25.04.1989. On that application, the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur called report from Revenue Department and Forest Department and thereafter passed order dated 21.06.1989 and permitted to cut down 150 trees and to sell them to Forest Department. It is alleged that the accused persons after getting order tampered the word 150 into 250 as well as in the other documents and on the basis of that the accused Virendra Netam, Brishapatilal Kashyap and Dhirpal Thakur cut down 250 trees and sold to Conservator of Forest Kondagaon for Rs. 9,97,279/- and thereby they received Rs. 3,93,912/-. On the basis of allegation, offence under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 479 of IPC and offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is registered against the accused persons. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that PW-06 in his statement admitted that he has not recorded the statement of appellant and not visited the spot for verification. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecution viz. Central Bureau of Investigation has failed to prove validity, justification of the order impugned so as to get what was the criteria for issuance of such order and further to affix the liability of officer who has issued the order. He further submits that it is well settled principle of law that however, suspicion may be strong, it cannot take place of proof. 10 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. So, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants. Hence, these appeals are well merited and no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/appellant Parashuram Dewangan under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted the co-accused under Sections 120B, 420B, 468/120B and 471/120B of IPC. 12. It is an admitted position before the learned trial Court that the accused/appellant late Parashuram Dewangan was posted as Reader in the court of Additional Collector, Jagdalpur and late accused Brihaspati Lal Kashyap , late accused Dhirpal Thakur and the present appellant/accused Virendra Netam purchased the land of tribals, thereafter Brihaspati Lal Kashyap (late accused) applied for cutting down of 277 trees which were standing on field vide application dated 25.04.1989 and on this application, the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur called report from Revenue Department and Forest Department and thereafter, passed the order dated 21.06.1989 and as per prosecution, the then Additional Collector, Jagdalpur gave permission to cut down 11 150 trees and to sell them to Forest Department, but all accused persons/appellants have tampered the word 150 into 250 as well as in the other documents and on basis of that the accused persons namely Virendra Netam, Brihaspati Lal Kashyap and Dhirpal Thakur cut down 250 trees and sold them to the conservator of Forest Kondagaon for Rs. 9,97,279/- and thereafter, received a sum of Rs. 3,93,912/-. 13. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/27 documents. The accused also exhibited 3 documents i.e., Ex. D/1, Ex. D/1C and Ex. D/1D and examined one witness in his defence namely Kishore Jadhav. 14. (PW-01) Krishnamurari Panigrahi, stated that in Ex. P/01 IS the order of Revenue Case No. 41/A-63/88-89 in the case of Brihaspati Lal Kashyap vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur passed order on 21.06.1989. In Ex. P/01, A to A part is handwritten as 250 and this writing seems to be of accused Parashuram Dewangan. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was never posted with the appellant Parashuram Dewangan and he is not handwriting expert. 15. (PW-03) Anil Kumar Acharya, accountant has stated that it seems to be overwriting has been done in A to A part of Ex. P/01. 16. (PW-06) Manoj Kumar Goel, has stated that he was posted as Additional Collector, Jagdalpur at the time of the said incident and he passed order on 25.03.1989 and he admitted his signature on A to A part in file Ex. P/09 and on being asked by the C.B.I he stated in para 12 2 which reads as thus:- “ckn esa tc lh0ch0vkbZ0 }kjk izdj.k dh tkap dh tk jgh Fkh rc eq>ls bl laca/k esa iwNrkN fd;s tkus ij eSus bl izdj.k dh uLrh izn'kZ ih0 9 dks ns[kus ds ckn ;g crk;k Fkk fd esjs vkns'k fnukad 21-06-89 ftlds }kjk ftrus o`{kks dks dkVus dh vuqefr nh xbZ Fkh mlesa 150 o`{kksa fy;k gqvk Fkk ftlesa mijh ys[ku djds 250 fdlh ds }kjk cuk;k x;k gS mDr vkMZj lhV fnukad 21-06-89 uLrh ds i`"B 4 ij i`"B 3 ds fiNys Hkkx gS tks fd mijh ys[ku okyk va'k v ls v Hkkx ij gS bl uLrh ds i`"B& 33 ij esjs vkns”k dh dkcZu dkWih yxh gS tks izn'kZ ih0 9 , gS ftlds vafre iSjk esa fy[ks 150 ds vad ,d dks vksoj VkbZi djds vad nks esa cnyk gSA ftlls og vad 250 gks x;k gS bl rjg 150 o`{kksa ds LFkku ij 250 o`{kksa dks dkVus dh Lohd`fr cuk yh xbZ gS rFkk blds vykok ml 250 vad ds mij isu ls nks lkS ipkl fy[kdj tksM+k x;k gS tks fd esjs }kjk ugh fy[kk x;k gSA jktLo izdj.k ds uLrh;ksa dk lU/kkj.k jhMj djrk Fkk ml le; esjk jhMj ijlwjke Fkk A vr% laHkkouk ;g gS fd ;g myV&Qsj jhMj us dh gksxh ;k djk;h gksxhA ;|fi eSa vkt ;g ugh crk ldrk gWw fd mDr nks lkS ipkl 'kCn fdlds gLrys[k esa gSA mDr myV&Qsj pwafd cgqr egRoiw.kZ Fkk ftlds }kjk o`{kksa dh la[;k esa ,d lkS dk varj vk jgk Fkk vr% ;fn og esjs vkns'k ls fd;k tkrk rks fu'p; gh ml LFkku ij esjs y?kq gLrk{kj gksrsA“ In para 6 of his cross-examination he admitted this fact that before passing such type of order, Tehsildar is asked to inspect the matter and he admitted that the Tehsildar inspected memo and it has been annexed. He also admitted that in Tehsildar’s report he recommended 13 for cutting of 277 trees and he also admitted that the Tehsildar sent his report through the Sub Divisional Officer and in order-sheet dated 25.04.1989 it was written that the report has been seen and the same is forwarded to the Additional District President for further action. In para 7 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the D.F.O has also recommended for cutting of 276 trees and he also admitted that he is competent to give permission for cutting of 250 trees. He further admitted in last line that about typed word “Van Vibhag” ( वन विवभाग) is written by himself by pen and he admitted that he did not put his initial in this word. He again admitted that “ ;g dguk lgh gS fd fnukad 21-06- 89 dh vkMZj lhV esa Vafdr ykbZu ds mij tks isu ls okD; fy[ks x;s gS og esjs }kjk gh fy[ks x;s gSA lk{kh us vkns'k if=dk ns[kdj crk;k fd blesa gkFk ls fy[ks x;s izFke 'kCn dks dkVdj nks mij ys[ku djds cuk;k x;k gS og esjs }kjk ugh cuk;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd isu }kjk fy[ks tkus dh ckn eSaus y?kq gLrk{kj ugh fd;k gSA” He denied this suggestion of defence that in C.B.I.’s investigation to save himself from the crime, he implicated the name of his reader. 17. (PW-11) Manish V. Murthy, Investigating Officer has admitted in para 28 of his cross-examination that the total amount obtained from cutting of trees is approx. Rs. 9,97,279/- which was deposited in Brihaspati Lal Kashyap’s account No. 3/11426 of State Bank of India, Branch Kondagaon. He also admitted that the account opened is a joint account in which the name of the Collector is also mentioned. He admitted in para 12 of his cross-examination that in Ex. P/20-A there is 14 no mention of village Bijoli at anywhere. He further admitted in para 22 which reads as thus:- यह कहना सही है विक मैंने विववेचना में पाया था विक डीएफओ ने 276 “22. वृ्ቌ काटे जाने योग्य पाया था। यह कहना एवं तहसीलदार कोंडागांव में 277 सही है विक वृ्ቌ कटाई के ्ቚकरण दज( होने के बाद अपर कलेक्टर अपने अधि-नस्थ कम(चारी एवं वन अधि-कारी से ्ቚधितवेदन एवं जांच रिरपोट( मंगवाते है। यह कहना सही है विक मैंने विववेचना के दौरान यह पाया था विक 250 से अधि-क वृ्ቌ कटाने जाने हेतु ्ቚधितवेदन इस ्ቚकरण में आया था। यह कहना सही है विक आदेश हो जाने के प्ቐात आदेश की एक ्ቚधित संबंधि-त वन विवभाग को भेजी जाती है। यह कहना सही है विक पेड कटाई के बाद कटे हुए वृ्ቌों को वन विवभाग ्ቅय करती है। यह कहना सही है विक मैंने विववेचना में पाया थाविक लिलये सयु्ሹ खाते खोले जाते है जिजसमें कलेक्टर काटे गये वृ्ቌों के भुगतान के एवं खातेदार के नाम से होते है। यह कहना सही है विक भुगतान की राशिश कलेक्टर की अनुमधित से खातेदार को ्ቚा् होता है । 18. (PW-12) S. Shaha is handwriting expert who gave handwriting report Ex. P/27 and he admitted his signature on A to A part and in B to B part he stated that he identified signature of A.S. Gupta and as per his report, he opined that overwriting was done by the accused late Parashuram Dewangan, who made word ‘150’ to “250”. In para 6 of his cross-examination he admitted that " यह बात सही है विक मेरे पास जो दस्तावेज ्ቚ०पी० 18 है। स्पेजिसमेन मेरे सामने नमुना लिलखावट मेरे सम्ቌ नहीं लिलये गये। मैं यह भी नहीं बता सकता विक स्पेसीमेंन में लिलखावट अशिभयु्ሹ परसुराम के है या नहीं क्योंविक मेरे सामने इसी ्ቚकार से स्पेजिसमेंन रायिሡटग नहीं है गवाह स्वतः कहता है विक जो दस्तावेज स्पेजिसमेन लिलखावट है उसके कम उपर जिजस व्यवि्ሹ ने लिलखा है उसका नाम लिलखा है। स्वतं्ቔ साधि्ቌयों के नाम भी लिलखे है जिजसके सामने लिलखे है।" In para 14 of his cross-examination he admitted that in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Ex. P/27 there is no mention anywhere that he has checked the specimen document with the original document. (PW/-11) Manish V. Murthy, Investigating Officer admitted the suggestion of defence that “;g dguk lgh gS fd iz0ih0&18 esa dgh ij Hkh vfHk;qDr ijlqjke nsokaxu ds gLrk{kj ugh gSA Lor% dgk fd nks lkf{k;ks ds le{k vfHk;qDr us gLrys[k fn;k Fkk vkSj blds i`"Bh gsrq nksuks 15 xokgks us uewus izys[k ij crkSj lk{kh ds :i esa gLrk{kj fd;s FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vfHk;qDr Jh ijlqjke nsokaxu ds ncko Mkydj uewukys[k izkIr fd;k FkkA” 19. Close scrutiny of all witnesses clearly shows that (PW-06) Manoj Kumar Goel, the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur gave his permission for cutting of trees and order dated 21.06.1989 was a typed order and in this order in two places A to A part and in the last line it has been written in pen with blue ink as " दो सौ पचास" and “ वन विवभाग को" and in B to B part it is typed as 250 and the allegation of the prosecution is that A to A part is written by the accused Parashuram Dewangan and in B to B part it has been previously typed as 150 and it was forged by the accused Parashuram Dewangan as 250. However, it is clear from statement of handwriting expert and sample handwriting of the accused Parashuram Dewangan that prosecution has not obtained signature of Parashuram Dewangan in sample handwriting paper vide Ex. P/18 and PW-06, Manoj Kumar Goel, the Additional Collector admitted in para 07 of his cross-examination that the words which were written by the blue ink of pen is his handwriting and he also admitted that he did not make his signature/ initial on the same. 20. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jupaily Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anothe1 in paras 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20, which read as thus:- 12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows: 1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950 16 2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 13. The words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are defined as follows: ‘‘24. “Dishonestly”— Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. 25. “Fraudulently”— A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.’’ Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain: ““Wrongful gain”: Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. “Wrongful loss”: Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.” Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another 17 to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property. 14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors.,5 this Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is established. This Court held as follows: “…both the learned courts have rested their findings on deception only and did not go into the question whether the complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely, dishonest inducement. “Dishonesty” has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such intention, deception is practised and delivery of property is induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been committed…" 19. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr.,8 this Court held to attract Section 464 IPC,9 the prosecution must establish that the accused had made the fake document. No material connecting the appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in impugned charge sheet. 20.Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC10 and Section 471 IPC11 are not attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance 18 of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC. ” 21. It is clear from record that all witnesses have only stated that it seems that these words were written by the accused and it is also clear that all amount of 250 trees was deposited in Government Treasury which was admitted by the prosecution witnesses and also admitted by the Investigating Officer that all amount was deposited in the State Bank of India account and there is no document filed by him which shows that any amount has been transferred to the accused Virendra Netam. As such, it is clear from statement of all witnesses that they only presumed that in the disputed order Ex. P/01 some forgery was done by the accused Parashuram Dewangan who is public servant. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that what illegal gratification has been received by the accused Parashuram Dewangan or any other co-accused person or accused Virendra Netam. The presiding officer (PW-06) himself admitted that in Ex. P/1, the words "वन विवभाग को" written by the blue ink of pen is his handwriting and he also admitted that he did not make his signature/ initial on the same. So, it is probable that A to A part is also written by the presiding officer and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that A to A part and No. 250 was forged by late accused Parashuram Dewangan and it is also an admitted position that the competent officer recommended for cutting of 277 trees and presiding officer (PW-06) also admitted this suggestion of defence that he is competent to order for cutting of 250 or 277 trees and money was deposited in Collector’s account. It is well settled principle of law laid down in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of 19 Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481 in para 30 which reads as thus:- “30. As already discussed hereinabove, merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime. We find that the prosecution has utterly failed to do so. 22. In the light of above cited judgment, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Ex consequenti, both the appeals are allowed and the appellant late Parashuram Dewangan and appellant Virendra Netam are acquitted of all charges levelled against them. 24. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant Virendra Netam is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju