3T?^T^ f^'lich Tf8TT 371^T st>^i°r» @7 'S^ ^N10<4, ^Tfl<1<l<o, fs|0W^< Nl^dl shNlch ^....C^....M.1.26/o.8...........^ 200 31T^?T ^OK (44f^<{<ST) '^TTW ^rf^cT 3i?1^T PETITIONER: Veiteus RESPONDENT/: (Accused, Prosecutor & Compiainant) {Petition under Section 22-2-2008:- Mr. Raja Sharma, coun^ Mr. An/ind Dubey, pan^i Heard. The petitioner, who is has preferred this petition und| 1973 for expunging the obs^ about the present petitioner and other observations made Flrst & foremost objecl^on is that neither the petitioner <=t>i^I<n<i1Ti ^i^<A ^f^^ <Pfl^i< '^^Tfim^TT^T Nikesh @ Jamala Bhanjan Pradhan, S/o Ramlai Pradhan, Age 39 years, Village Pandapara, PO To^hgaon, PS Basna, Dlstt. - Mahasamund Prakash, Age -40, Sachchidanand Pradhan, S/o Nayan Bsi Gond, Age 30 years, w/o Jaggannath @ Pitro Gond, 1 & 2 R/o Vill. Pandapara, PO Toshgaon, PS Basna, Distt.- Mahasamund State of Chhattisgarh, By, DM tVSahasamund |482 of Crimlna! Procedure Code, 1973 } SAon'ble Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo .e! for the petitioner. lawyer for the state/respondent No.3. practicing Advocate at District Mahasamund, ?r Section 482 of the Crimjnal Procedure Code, ^r/ations and conclusions of the Court below ^ontained in paras 20, 21 , 24, 25, 26, 28 & 30 |n the judgment. raised by learned counsel for the petitioner Herein was examined in that case as a witness 3^r ^r f^^ich 'cT^TT •STT^T^^NT Dub' '3^ ^1<<|0<4, ^TH^IJI^, (s|<?!>iy^< W^r ^fe.^.'-..U-..e....^.8/5.8...............^ „„ ^?r IRra? (4^H^<^T) 0 '^ITW^f^T 3?T^T —(z- <=r)Mf<n<i1ri ^M<rff '^\f^t '^RC?R ^^fRrqw^r nor he appeared in the case orf behalf of any of the panies and wrthout giving show-cause notice or opportun|ty of hearing to the petitioner, ex parte, in the absence of petitioner who js a| practicing Advocate, obsen./ations have been made by the learned Sessiosjts Judge in the judgment 13.11.2007 passed inS.T.T^o.19/2007. <e petltioner argued that before passing any counsel for th observation against a practic required to issue notice and ^ ing Advocate, learned Sessions Judge was ive opportunity to the petitioner to explaSn his conduct and thereafter, learn4d Sessions Judge ought to have recorded hjs finding. It js not disputed b observations have been pass^d against the petitioner without issuing notice to him. Having heard the !earn| the facts and circumstances ^ obser^ation that in the first learned Sessions Judge for e| him as per his assessment aij y jearned counsel for the State that these id counsel for the parties and having regard to if the case, this petition is disposed of with an instance, the petitioner should move before (punging of the obsen/atjons which are aga'mst d the tearned Sessions Judge on fiilng of such application sha!l decide the s^me on jts merit, in accordance with iaw. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge