COURTFEESEXEMFTED BVNOTIFICATION N0:996Qro-2870/XXI- B/C.G./05 AS SPEGIFIEDINSCHEDULg I & H OF THE CQUaT FEES ACT 1870: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURECHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ^•^iEi ^S'W^s s w CMMINAL REVISION N0.^B^ 12007 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT > ^&^ ;\\?'' \>^ €<'•M^ State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate Kanker (C.G.) ^- VERSUS t<: • • ' •• '• Ramkumar Gupta S/o Shri Chhannulal Gupta Aged about51 years . R/o Near Railway Crossing HUDCO <y'i'- ^O9 i3| 5<Y Sector-6, P.S. BhilaiNagar Kotwali •\^'r' ^.o,.^ Tah. 8s District Durg (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SEGTION 397 R/W401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Criminal RevisionNo. 486of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Ramkumar Gupta Shri Praveen Das, Govt. Advocate of the State/petitioner. Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the respondent. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDERSECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMrNAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (04.12.2009) On 25.9.2007 notice was issued to the respondent on I.A. No.1/2007 for condonation ofdelay in filing the revision. Subsequently on 3.7.2009 the state counsel withdrew the said application with liberty to file a proper application duly supported by affidavit. However, despite lapse of sufficient time no application for the said purpose has been filed by the State. Thus, the delay still remains. This revision has been filed against the order dated 26;:3i2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in Criminal Revision No. 6/2007 by which the vehicle in question i.e. Tata 207 bearing Registration No. CG-04/0669 was directed to be given to the respondenton Supurdginama. Learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that the vehicle in question is in his possession on Supurdginama and heundertakes to surrender the same if any order in this regard is passed by the competent authority. He submits that neither the criminal case has been deeided nor the confiscation proceedings have been concluded and therefore he may be allowed to retain the vehicle in question subject to fhe outcome of the criminal proceedings and the proceedingsinitiatedbytheForestDepartment. / , Submission of the counsel for the respondent appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, in view of the undertaking given by the respondent ,1 find no reasdn te interfere with the impugned order. Thus fiSM'ie: -•2.- "^2>o the revision being without merit and that too being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that the concerned Magistrate and the competent authorityof the Forest Department shall decide the cases pending before them within a period of six mpnths from the date of receipt of cqpy of this order. The respondent is duty bound to apprise both the aforesaid authorities of this order within a period of one month from today. ~—~"~~~'- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker •S.i 16*- •5-1