News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 203 | 2026:CGHC:12511
March 16, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld an appellate court order directing a fresh trial in a case involving alleged embezzlement of over ₹26 lakh by a police constable, while strongly criticizing the prosecution for failing to produce any witnesses during the original trial.
The case concerns Satya Prakash Bhagat, a constable posted in the Superintendent of Police (SP) office in Surguja district. According to the prosecution, Bhagat, who assisted in the salary branch, manipulated the e-payment system between 2011 and 2014 to siphon off government funds into his own bank account and that of his father. The alleged misappropriation amounts to ₹26,40,870.
The prosecution claimed that Bhagat inflated his own Naxalite allowance, transferred disproportionately large amounts under the guise of “special ration money,” and diverted funds into accounts using false identities. Following these allegations, an FIR (Crime No. 91/2014) was registered at Ambikapur Police Station under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC.
Despite the seriousness of the charges, the trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, collapsed due to a complete lack of evidence. Over the course of nearly 28 hearings, the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness. Summons, bailable warrants, and arrest warrants issued to secure the presence of witnesses went unexecuted. In January 2020, the trial court closed the evidence and acquitted Bhagat, citing the prosecution’s lack of diligence.
The State challenged this acquittal before the appellate court. The Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for a fresh trial, observing that the gravity of the allegations warranted giving the prosecution another opportunity to present its case.
Bhagat then approached the High Court in revision, arguing that the trial court had already granted sufficient opportunities and that the appellate court erred in allowing further proceedings.
Rejecting this contention, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal upheld the remand order. The Court emphasized that criminal trials cannot be reduced to a procedural formality due to lapses by the prosecution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 787, the Court reiterated that a trial judge cannot remain a passive observer and must ensure that justice is not defeated by administrative inefficiency.
The High Court noted that all key witnesses in the case were government officials, including personnel from the police, treasury, and banking departments. Their non-appearance, despite repeated coercive measures, raised serious concerns about institutional functioning. The Court also observed that the passage of time and transfer of officials may have contributed to the difficulty in securing attendance, necessitating intervention at a higher administrative level.
Finding no illegality in the appellate court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and issued detailed directions to ensure an effective retrial. It ordered that the trial court conduct hearings at least twice a month and that bailable warrants be issued to witnesses at the outset instead of relying on summons. Responsibility for ensuring witness attendance has been fixed on the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur.
The Court further directed that the trial be concluded within five months and emphasized that both the prosecution and the defense must cooperate to ensure timely completion. Copies of the order have been sent to the Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police for compliance.
With these directions, the High Court reinforced the principle that procedural lapses cannot be allowed to derail serious criminal prosecutions, particularly those involving alleged misuse of public funds.
Case Reference : Criminal Revision No. 323 of 2022, Satya Prakash Bhagat vs. State of Chhattisgarh
