VINOD KUMAR MARKAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010094352025 2026:CGHC:45349
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
MOHD
AKHTAR
KHAN
Date:
2026.10.27
17:38:07
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MOHD
AKHTAR
KHAN
THE DATE
WHEN THE
THE DATE
WHEN THE
JUDGMENT IS
PRONOUNCED
THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS
UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE
CASE IS
RESERVED
Operative Full
14.10.2026 27.10.2026 27.10.2026
CRA No. 569 of 2025
Vinod Kumar Markam, S/o Ramu Ram Markam, aged about 29 Years,
•
R/o Village- Biranpur, P.S.- Narharpur, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker,
Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throguh - Station House Officer, P.S.- Narharpur,
District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
2. Ajay Kumar Sharma, S/o Vashisht Sharma, aged about 56 Years, Sub-
Inspector Excise, R/o Govindpur, Police Station Kanker, Presently
Posted At District Excise Office, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
3. Umesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Gaindlal, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village-
Biranpur, P.S.- Narharpur, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
C A V Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14A(1)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

2
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST Act’), challenging the order
dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Bastar,
Kanker, C.G., whereby respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma was
discharged from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419,
468, 469, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’)
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, whereas respondent No.3–
Umesh Kumar Sahu was discharged from the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and the matter relating to the alleged offences
under the IPC was forwarded to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker, C.G., for further proceedings in
accordance with law.
2. Case of the appellant is that he belongs to the Gond Scheduled Tribe.
Respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma was working as an Excise Sub-
Inspector, whereas respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar Sahu was working
as a Supervisor at the Government Foreign Liquor Shop, Narharpur. It
is alleged that respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar Sahu obtained the
Aadhaar Card, caste certificate, residence certificate and educational
documents of the appellant on the pretext of providing him employment
as a guard at the said liquor shop. According to the appellant, on
01.09.2022, respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma inspected the liquor
shop and found that a quarter of Goa Special Whisky, having a
prescribed price of Rs.120/-, was being sold for Rs.130/-. The person
present at the counter disclosed his name as Vinod Markam (appellant
herein). The attendance register of the shop also contained the name
and signatures attributed to the appellant. Appellant alleged that he had
never worked at the said shop and that his name and signatures had
been falsely entered in the attendance register. He further alleged that

3
a newspaper report published on 11.09.2022 damaged his reputation.
After submitting complaints before the concerned authorities, the
appellant filed a complaint before the competent Court.
3. The learned Special Judge, after considering the complaint and the
documents placed on record, found no sufficient ground to proceed
against respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma for the alleged offences.
However, the learned Special Judge found sufficient grounds to
proceed against respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar Sahu under Sections
419, 468, 469, 471 and 500 of the IPC and forwarded the matter to the
Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker,
C.G., for further proceedings in accordance with law. Respondent No.3
was, however, discharged from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Special
Judge has not properly appreciated the material available on record. It
is argued that respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar Sahu obtained the
appellant’s personal documents on the pretext of providing him
employment and subsequently misused them by entering the
appellant’s name and signatures in the attendance register of the said
shop. It is further submitted that respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma
wrongly showed the appellant as the person involved in the incident of
selling liquor at a higher price, thereby damaging his reputation.
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside
and appropriate action be taken against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in
accordance with law.

4
5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2- Ajay Kumar Sahu
opposes the appeal and submits that the learned Special Judge has
rightly passed the impugned order after considering the material
available on record. It is argued that no sufficient ground was found to
proceed against respondent No.2 for the alleged offences. Therefore,
learned counsel prays that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar Sahu submits
that the learned Special Judge has rightly discharged respondent No.3
from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is further
submitted that the material available on record does not disclose
sufficient grounds to proceed against respondent No.3 for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 469, 471 and 500 of
IPC. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set
aside to the extent it directs respondent No.3 to face trial for the
aforesaid offences under IPC and that he be discharged from the said
offences as well.
7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent has duly assisted the Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, including the impugned order passed by the
learned Special Judge.
9. The main allegation against respondent No.2–Ajay Kumar Sharma is
that he falsely implicated the appellant in the incident of selling liquor at
a price higher than the prescribed rate, thereby damaging his
reputation. However, from the material available on record, it appears
that respondent No.2 inspected the Government Foreign Liquor Shop,
Narharpur, on 01.09.2022 in the discharge of his official duties. As

5
stated in the departmental inquiry report (Ex.P-3), a quarter of Goa
Special Whisky, having a prescribed price of Rs.120/-, was sold for
Rs.130/-. The person present at the counter disclosed his name as
Vinod Markam (appellant herein). The attendance register (Ex.P-4) was
also examined, wherein the appellant's name and signatures were
recorded for the relevant period. The inquiry report also refers to the
statements of the liquor shop employees, namely, Dharmendra Kumar
Netam, Bharat Vishwakarma and Ramesh Kumar Sinha, who stated
that the appellant was not working at the said shop. This material may
give rise to an allegation that the appellant's identity was misused and
that false entries were made in the attendance register in his name.
However, there is no specific material on record to show that
respondent No.2- Ajay Kumar Sharma had obtained the appellant's
personal documents, willfully made the alleged false entries in the
attendance register or knowingly used any forged document to
implicate him.
10. Similarly, the mere publication of a newspaper report regarding the
incident is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that respondent No.2-
Ajay Kumar Sharma deliberately caused its publication with the intention
of defaming the appellant. The material available on record does not
prima facie show that respondent No.2 knowingly and deliberately
implicated the appellant or participated in the alleged forgery. The
learned Special Judge, after considering the circumstances in which the
inspection was conducted, found no sufficient ground to proceed
against respondent No.2- Ajay Kumar Sharma for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 419, 468, 469, 471 and 500 of IPC. This

6
Court finds no apparent illegality or perversity in the said finding
warranting interference.
11. So far as respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar Sahu is concerned, the
allegations and the material available on record stand on a different
footing. Appellant has alleged that respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar
Sahu obtained his Aadhaar Card, caste certificate, residence certificate
and educational documents on the pretext of arranging employment for
him as a guard at the liquor shop. It is further alleged that, although no
appointment letter was issued to the appellant and he had never worked
at the said shop, but his name and signatures were entered in the
attendance register.
12. In support of these allegations, the appellant relied upon the
departmental inquiry report (Ex.P-3), the attendance register (Ex.P-4),
the complaints submitted before the concerned authorities and other
documents forming part of the record. After considering the complaint
and the material placed on record, the learned Special Judge found
sufficient grounds to proceed against respondent No.3–Umesh Kumar
Sahu for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 469,
471 and 500 of the IPC and forwarded the matter to the Court of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker, for further
proceedings in accordance with law.
13. Thus, the allegations regarding the alleged misuse of the appellant’s
identity and the preparation or use of documents in his name require
examination during trial. This Court finds no apparent illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing
respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar Sahu to face trial for the aforesaid

7
offences. The truthfulness of these allegations and the involvement of
respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar Sahu shall be determined by the
competent Court on the basis of the evidence produced during trial.
Therefore, no final opinion on the merits of these allegations is
expressed at this stage.
14. So far as the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is
concerned, the mere fact that the appellant belongs to a Scheduled
Tribe is not sufficient to attract the said provision. The essential
ingredients of the offence must also be satisfied. In the present case,
the allegations relate to the alleged misuse of the appellant’s personal
documents, entry of his name and signatures in the attendance register
and his alleged false implication in the incident of selling liquor at a
higher price. However, the material available on record does not
disclose sufficient grounds to show that the alleged acts were
committed against the appellant on the ground that he belonged to a
Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in
finding no sufficient ground to proceed against respondent No.2- Ajay
Kumar Sharma and respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar Sahu under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. This Court also finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned order on this count.
15. Upon consideration of the material available on record and the reasons
assigned by the learned Special Judge, this Court finds no illegality,
perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order dated
19.12.2024 warranting interference in the present appeal.
16. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

8
17. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment are
confined to the decision of the present appeal and shall not affect the
independent consideration of the evidence and merits of the
proceedings pending against respondent No.3- Umesh Kumar Sahu
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker, C.G.
The said Court shall decide the matter in accordance with law and on
the basis of the evidence brought on record, without being influenced by
any observations made herein.
18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court for information
and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Khan