Chattisgarh High Court
Purendra Narayan Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2025.08.12
12:01:32 +0530
2025:CGHC:40083
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 813 of 2017
Purendra Narayan Pandey S/o Late Shri Sutikshan Prasad
Pandey, Aged About 813 Years R/o Shaktipara Balodabazar, P. S.
Kotwali Balodabazar, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy.
A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
11/08/2025
1. This revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges the
impugned judgment dated June 30, 2017, passed by the
Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Criminal Appeal No.
01/2017. The Sessions Judge upheld the judgment dated
November 29, 2016, passed by the Chief Judicial
2
Magistrate, Balodabazar, in Criminal Case No. 1261/2014,
convicting the applicant under Section 205 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant was sentenced to
imprisonment until the rising of the court and fined Rs.
10,000, with default sentencing to simple imprisonment for
one month.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 28/09/1991, the
accused, Malikram, son of Dularam Sahu, aged 51 years,
resident of Dhelki, appeared in court impersonating one
Rajaram and obtained the fraudulent bail of one Raju.
However, Rajaram had passed away on 05/06/1989.
Further, Advocate’s clerk Purendra alias Surendra Pandey,
son of S.P. Pandey, aged 28 years, resident of Purani Basti,
Balodabazar/applicant, falsely identified Malikram in court
as Rajaram, son of Tulai Sahu, and affixed his signature on
the bail bond and affidavit. Consequently, at the Police
Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, crime was registered
against the accused persons. Upon completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in
support of its case. The statement of the applicant /
accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in
which he denied the circumstances appearing against him
3
in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution,
pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court acquitted the applicant of the offenses under
Sections 419 and 467 of the IPC. However, the applicant
was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier, which
was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court in the
impugned judgment dated June 30, 2017. The present
revision petition challenges the legality, validity, and
correctness of the impugned judgment.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant
is innocent and wrongly convicted. The offense under
Section 205 IPC is not made out, as the applicant’s
involvement is not proven. The fine amount has already
been deposited. The applicant seeks acquittal and setting
aside of the impugned judgment.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supported the impugned judgment and opposed the
argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record including the impugned judgment.
8. From perusal of the entire evidence available on record, it is
4
conclusively established that the accused, Malikram,
impersonated Rajaram already died to secure bail in
Criminal Case No. 2266/92 on 28.08.1991. The bail bond
(Ex. P-5) unequivocally bears the declaration and signature
of accused/applicant Purendra Pandey identifying
Malikram as “Rajaram”. This act of Purendra Pandey was
not a mere procedural lapse but a deliberate facilitation of
false personation before a judicial authority. His knowing
identification of Malikram as Rajaram directly enabled the
commission of the offence, and his role in abetting the said
impersonation is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the
case, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned
finding of the Trial Court which has also been affirmed by
the Appellate Court.
10. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham