IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. / • . . f WRIT PETITION N0. 2^"7 I / 2005 PETITIONER: l^""' RESPONDENTS: •^ 6'.^ ^~:,.^ Tarak Sarkar, S/o Shri Supad Sarkar, aged about 38 years, Occupation Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, R/o Kevramunda Ward, Near Gujrati Samaj , Jagdalpur, District Central Bastar, (C.G.) VERSUS A. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Departiiient ofAgriciiltiire (Aniiiial Husbaadry), Govemment ofChhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur ,(C.G.) ./' The Director, Department of Veterinary Services, Govermnent ofChliattisgarh G.E.Road, Raipur, (C.G.) ,3. The Jomt Director , Department of Veterinary Services, Govemment of Chhattisgarh Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBTION. CERTIORARI, AND ANY OTHER WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. L...... XI-HC-22 3TT^T^)T f^W^TT^T T^^cT $hHT^^ y- 3^ '<<i<ii<n<i, «>Tnwt<p,{^dlUl|<. ^,.P...M8...^S:.7i|0^ HW^{\ $h*41<h -—-—-^^^^^ ^T 200 te^' 3TI^?T ^cTTW^^^ 10.08.200S Shri Alok Dewaiigan, Shri Arun Sao, Dy. Govtj copy. Heard. Learaed counsel for petitioner was prosecuted f<| Sections 498-A & 494 ofI.P.C.| Act He was convicted by fhe crimioal case No. 296/1999 Thereafter, fhe petitioner Sessions Court, This appeal Special Judge (ST & SC Jagdalpur. The Special Judge| aad by judgment dated 12.021 5/2004 acquitted Tnirn fiiom fhe judgment of conviction Court, Learaed counsel for fh<| petitioner filed au appUcation on fhe basis of judgment ofl Court, fhe aufhority of the refused to entertaia fhe fhat fhough order of convid Court, fhe ainount of fine dep( cou|asel for fhe petitfoner. Advocate for the State on advance thfc raattler cr>i^ici<nTi ^i+i^ ^te^<Ri<^i< ^3ri^T3T1^T fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe |>r fhe offence pun^hable under aad Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition ^earaed Chief Judicial Magistrate in (^tate -v- Tarak Sarkar aad ofhers). fil^d a crmiiaal appeal before the jwas takeri up for hearmg by the [P^evention of Atrocities] Act, 1989) laUowed fhe appeal of the petitioner |2004 passed ia crimmal appeal No. said cnmiaal case by settmg aside ^nd sentence awarded by fhe trial petitioner submits fhat when fhe For remstatement m tfae department acquittal passed by fhe appellate lepartment vide AnnexuLre-P/2 has for reiastateiaent on the ground on wa$ set aside by the Sessions isited before the C,J.M has not been XI-HC-22 ^n^r^T R<4J<=b3Tl^T sb*iicb <iRa SFST^IFII^T, ^xllwi^, fa^iwy ^M-M^^.7MDE NWdltbMI* "*"**""**"""" ^ 200 w 2.-1 rcfunded to fhe petitioner and ofrefundoffine. Learaed counsel for fhe ^ fhe petitioner filed an appUcati| M^istrate for refiind of fhe which he had deposited ia judgment of convictiQn passed C.J.M. refiised to refund fhe Leamed couiisel for fhe petitic^ Magistrate has taken a view of fiiie amount, fherefore, fhe aad he rejected the appUcation| If in. ca^e of conviction awarded to an accused/petitj appeUate Court set aside fhe eij passed aa order of acquittal | fhen it necessarily includes fhj jail sentence and fhe fiine se) relation to them are not If fhe entire judgment of the fhere is not question ofcoirfusi| Such views taken by fh^ vide order dated 23.8,2004 the State vide Annexure-P/2| unfortunate. It appears lliat t| f|ne fUat reqzur^d tbal <=bMTd^1'l Hl*l^ fftec^l'<Rtt<l< ^3Tf^T3?1^r [tfaey have deinaiided for fhe receipt letitioner furfher subniits fhat when t>n before fhe leanied Chief Judicial amount in SUICL of Rs. 1,000/- fhat Court ia pursuaace of fhe |in crimmal case No. 296/ 1999, the |same by order dated 23.08.2004. ber submits that ffae Chief Judicial siace fhere is no order of refiind Ifine amoiint shaU not be refunded |of the petitioner. sentence includiag £me sentence ^oner, an appeal is filed and fhe ^tire judgnient offtie trial Court and favoiir offhe accused/petitioner ^ settmg aside of all fhe sentences^ (itence aiid aay separate order m to be passed by appeUate Court. Court has been set aside, then |>n about its iaterpretation. i^ leanied Chief Judicial MagKtorate (^nnexure-P/5) aad fhe aufhority of are not only erroneous but are afad tl ofh fhe aufhorities specificsdty the XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T ^i<=b3?l^T st»Hlct»^rfN' St»Hlct»^T -s|0:^ ^ S^T^IRrRPT, ^inwi^, Rl<nwy ^A^^^lij^.^0^ wwiTgTffra?*^ ^^*^^^yw( 200 311^1 5<^l^^f?<T ~5 C.J.M. have not appUed fheir appeUate Court. In one iiiaiuijer, view agaiast themi. However, lookmg to fhe J^c for fhe tune beiag a dircetioi^ detailed representation withia wifh copy of fhis order b^ aufhiority regardiag reiastaten| filed^ fhe conceraed aufhonty possible preferably withia a ^ receipt of fhe rcpresentation by this Court. The petitioner shaU appUcation beforc fhe C.J.M, I shaU be disposed ofby fhe C.J| Wifh fhe aforesaid disposed of, Certified copy ofthis ordjer fortiirtdth aad one copy of fhjis Judicial Magistrate, Ja^dalpurj fhis Court. chl^Id411r1 Wl^it ^ fecA <Rl<^l< ^3Tl^T3??^T , ijmnd to fhe judgment passed by fhe [laanjer, fhe miatter calls to take serious J^cts and circumstaaces offhecase, is given to fhe petitioner to file a ^. period of 15 days jBx>in today aloxig tfore the conceraed departmental |ent and if such a rcpresentation is ^haU dispose ofthesameas earty as ^eriod of3o days fix>m ftie date of k^epiag ia xmnd fhe observation inade a^so be at liberty to file anofher fc>r refund of the fiiie amouxit which IM, ui accordance wifh law. obse|ryations, fhe petition stands jBiiaUy shaU be suppUed to fhe petitioner onder shall be sent to the Chief for apprisiag wifh fhe view taken by Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^^fei) k