i M{ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU WRIT PETITION (Cr) No 5%! /2o1o TIIoriER PETig / A.R; Belsar'a, S/o Deval Singh Bejséria, aged about 40 years{ working as Filed Officer, in Districi Antayavalsal Sahkari Vikas. Samiti Maryadit, Dantewada Distt. ‘ Dandewada :R/o Opp. P.H.E. Office Kailash Nagar, Distt. Dantewada, (C.G.) VERSUS / : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — the Secretary, Secretary. Horhe Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgar . Superintendent of Police , Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh . Town Inspector, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) x4. Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Ijarish Chandra Sharma, aged about 50 years, Chief Executive )Officer, Antayavaisai, Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE £26 OF THE CONSTITUTIO " .~ OF INDIA R RESPONDENTS h. " V \ H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH T BILASP‘UR nqle Bench Hon’ble Shrl Justice Praslhant Kum r Mls ' I hra _ \ rt ition en No.574 0 201 ‘ etition ..ea VG‘SUS I i eom enf ‘ I Rép s ‘ J , x > f re‘sent} y ate o hattlsarh a tr1ler Shrl T KzTIwamcounseI for the petmoner Shrl ’esh Ranjan Smha Panel Lawyer ‘fo th Ss e tate/respondent :'I»‘-....~....~ -.N. ”MM rit Petition under Artici'e226 of the ution of India nstant etition under Article 22- as bee preferre b the accused of C e Ckh g g s 409 467 471: ad 34 i hh ng n arge-seet beari N 67/209 d g pn o 0 as mentione in pararaph 10 2 of the writ etitio Ctton of India onsitui :Mh o d y m No 246/2007 PS harad fNaar Raiarh for offences unde Section IC P!, seein kg qh uasment of th A he relevant time the petitioner was posted as lncharge Chief Et Off f A g n xecuive icer o ntyavasayee Sahakari Vikas Samiti Raiarh A the co accused Mr K C Raiak Inter al/a alleging hat during the period from 23 1 1-2004 to 5-—1 an amount of Rs 27 75 153/- has been’misaroriated b 26200 ppp y showmg e said amount havmg been depOSIted in the Bank ‘ n th ptt a st e eiioner Wi Pet () % 0 1 ‘ Per ARBlsria £ St f Chg nd os :P _. W Co t I p 60 A d f h ptm ld t tht h n Learne counsel or te eoner wou submi a e was a ncharge Chief Executive fcer an te entl e accusaion Is again ‘ I pb f p t he an and that It was he who has reared e forged deosn slip an t I '7 he etlittoner has nothmg to o In e sai affair [submit that whlle allowmg antICIpaory all o e peiioner thi re Is no rlma aCIe materlal aainst hi on State of Harana and oters vs hajan a and oer 992 Su (1) SCC 335 Paragrap an oamme lbrar 1 pp (h 103) d Mhd hm a othr vs t h (2009 8 SCC 751 nd e Sate of Blhar and anoter ) Parag , phs 8 and 9) learned counsel woul submit a te prese is a fit ase h’rrene nder Article 26 of the onsiuion o ‘ ‘I? t ndia s calle-o 'I Of d h t st $ % the Accountant who was resonSIIe or de Sltlng he amount In t s I t Led oul earn cnse L would t b f th tt s ,e p f g m s observed th Led cun he / dt N 3 n earn osel for t Stateres nens o1 to o a e of' '1 5f d 'd e h dd; raud an ence bfOre anyting can be ‘cOnCIu’e thé' h tit n doesn _ erefore, tis pei dva ol ‘notice submits that the matter pertains to commISSIon t enerned. o'be ttai *amnt of th tition sttee e ‘ . r' w H h td that itness Shrl Ramesh Chandra Sharma Is avallable e as sate e matter was enqUIred and a report was submitte by the committe th d e ~ w h b fd" herein the petitioner and the co accused Mr Rajak ave een oun Att d to be Involved In the offence He also states that the ccounan an h concerned Chief Executive Offcer have ot reare e orge seal of the Corporation an l d have embezzled the amount n the A ’«It has ben d h th the e mentione tat bo a gy h hs Iso I ccused persons are wlt of committing te offence He a I ti‘“ n the documents annexed With the wrl @ Bk pp th p d t p d th d Court ha at ‘ t I : y h {B Ll ths, ( d tht h nt ' e weremtefec u 9 Cttt f m I i iidfr. te g ppd th fd ; ./ z, ated that fhe deOSIt shp Is vermed by the Chief Executwe Officer an t Witnesses namel, RSVerma an It contams his mltlals hy have atso made statements imphcatmg e petiione t A s ’ w o h t e 7. In Vte f te above It Is found that the present ts no a cas w e y th th off w be h tt t tter i here ther Is absotutel no evrdence to conn ct the petrtroner wr e ! t ence§ It rll a matter of evrdence as to wat exen he perron _. was ponsrble In the affair of deposrt of the amount by preparing t ored Bank deposrt sllp Te e e r re he fg h judgmnts relied by the petitioner ar to he ffect; hat the owers under Artrcles 226 and of t Costitution of Indra can be exerCIsed when there Is asoluey n atil’gto connect the etitioner with the ‘cme howeer, as saed Ihezr‘e'sent Is not: a‘cae‘ ‘f’‘a nare a I In Rehma Bano vs State of Utta Prades an oers K M Shn s h d th (2008) :5 SCC 791 Central Bureau of Investigatron vs ara 2008 ’ 71 nd Sunlta Jam vs Pawan Kumar Jam an o 8 QS p ld hat w g h he- s t hs V s e stent recorded during the Investigation to draw an Inerenc t e t. hat the ptltloner/accused Is Innocen 9. I w o / t h o n Vie f the above, thls Court fnds that this petiion as n subsan d t h dn ' tce It deserves to be and Is hereby dismisse a te amlssro slf. stage jlte Sdl- . fIshant Kumar Mlsr ( 4VIISCC 4 a d thers, (200 CC 705 the Hon ble Sureme Court has he t hlle dealln wrth a petition for quashlng the F I R or te carg heet the writ Court cannot embark upon making rov1ng enquiry a ti tage It has also been held therein that the Court cannot apprecrat the taem fe Judge st p d Oher y d 1 S L Sa th tr t t p ’ 227 he ' n btl o merai: p ér, y tt ' tfp s otht tu; ; 8. if. / I Pra ha V Go‘pal