x ; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2008 Petitionér Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Reviéionist Corporation Limited, Through the Didstrict Manager, District Office, Bilaspur (CG). (Note: Inadvertently the District Manager has been impieaded as party in his personai capacity before the learned Court below) Versus Non-petitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Torva Respondent BilaspurCG. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482» OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL ‘ PROCEDURE (SB: t Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Shri V.R. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Panel lawyer for the State. O R D E R (Passed on 11‘“ April, 2008) v. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. .112/07 reversing the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal, M.J.C. No. 41/07 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition for interim custody and disposal of the perishable article (rise) and to deposit the sale proceed in the Court. (2) By the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge has reversed, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and allowed the application for interim custody and also directed that‘the perishable article (rise) be sold and the sale proceed be deposited in the Court. (3) lt is argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a public ' undertaking and governmental instrumentality. He is required to discharge a public function in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed. 69 ,1} i a§st rty f h be d Offence ain the prope o the applicant as en committe and propt as se n cection with offence. I accordance with iect Cr i a t the drion of the out, the applcant hs sold he rise perihbl aicle). He is required to deposit te sale proceed in the Court. eosition of the sale proceed would be ardship to e applicant and pblic distribution syste ou be adversely affected It is also et t tn e o reqused hat instead of deposiig th sale proceed, bank guarantee f the cost o ise would srve the purpose. lt is lso requested that ’ direct t this effect be paed. ion o ss epplicant has not filed any applation for modification of the directio o the revisional urt. There is subanc in the cntetion n befre co ste on of the ppct. urin the course of arguments, it is submitted that the alian Dg applica wants to file application for modication in th order before the nt fi e revisional t an with this liberty, h ants to withdra this tition. cour d e w w pe (4) (5) e p p ed f ifi h visiol urt rena co onquently the petiOn is dismissed as withdraw with libert to m apropriate aplication,\if so advis, or modcation before te Sdl— l SH T.P. ARMA ‘ J ery W eizd i onn that n (sae rt h Dp h th u m wld . f r e a a Th<a ic Cse, ti n y udge;