HIGH (:OURT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT glLAsPUR (Crimina’i §evision No.286 ¢f 266i 1. Shiv 9msad Dzwnngcm Slo Sonow Das Dewangan aged abou"? 50 year-s iiio Viliage Kafarye P.S. Kasdoi Eisfikaipur Applicants 2. Haw Ram 5/0 Danesh Rum Dewangah aged abouf 50 years i2io Viiiage Ka'tuy‘i Tahsii Kasdol Dis-3‘ : Raipur. Versus Vi‘ Non-app!items $uljari kli 5/0 Loorsai Dewangm, . Ram Niwas S/a Noorsai Dewangan . Prudeep Slo Naorsdi All R/o Viuage Kamngi P.$.Kasda!, Dis‘hRaipur 4. 5mm of Chhu‘msgarh 1’hmLggh F.3Kasdol, DisT:Raipur. (CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER 5ECT£0N 397/3401 OF THE CrRCV) ($5: Hon‘ble Mn T..P. $hema, J.) Wasemi Shri Adi! Minhaz, counsal far The applicants. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan: counsei for fhe non-uppiicams‘NoJ fc3. 5hri $ameer' khan Panei lawyer for %'ne 5?a?e/Honwpiiwhf Na.4. QRAL canaa (Passed an. 25*" Mavember, aces) This revision ggtifien is directed against The arder daiad 16.4200! passed by The Judicia! Magisfmi‘z Firs? Classi Balada Bazar‘; in Criminal Case No.516/96. ,9 Learned counsel for 1’he appiimms submits “that non—appiiccmt No.2 has directly filed an applimtiaiw Len, I.A.Nn.2568/2006 for wH‘hdmwai of The revision and *he same is supported iay The affidavit Learned caunsei fer The aspiimn‘rs submits fha‘l' he has no knowledge abauf fhis applica'rion. n 65% 256 ml I § I have perused order impugned and copy of The witnesses. The mus“? ) below has acquitted non-apglicants No.1 To 3 on The basis ‘rhm’ civii suit which has been decreed in favaur- of non-applicants No.1 to 3 far- The offance punishabie under $ecfions 448 and 427/34 of ‘H'ie Indian Pam! COdB; 1‘ 1., The revision pa?ifion has already been admiffed far hwring. I Taking info cmsidzmiion the view Taken by ‘ihe caur'i beiawi l downo‘i find any ground far invoking revisionai jurisdiai‘ion agnins‘r'fhe judgmen‘i’ 9f acquiftgLn‘i' fhe instance of private par‘ty. Consequentiy, ‘i'he revision pain-ion stands dispased of. £ In View 0f ‘i‘héabwa 2568/2006 niso sfancis disposed 0i Sdl- ’ " T.P. Sharma Judb¥ _'I