IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P .N0.y2 t ^ QF 2011 PETITIQNER Applicant \\...-\^ ^>:y\ CV7,-.^:''A--' '^^>y •^' -^y RESPONDENT Bharat Agrawal S/o Shri Vijay Agrawal, Director M/S Raigarh Coal Benefication Private Limited, office - soufh Chakardhar Nagar, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) through special power attorney holder- Shri J.P. Sinha S/o Shri S.P. Sinha, aged about 47 years, R/o Plot No. 256, near Giris Higher Secondary School, Indira Vihar, Transport Nagar Korba, Tahsil 85 Distt. Korba (C.G.) Vs " State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE A^.tf?^i:':lu^&:%t>i^SiS?®S^^ •;^Ky'^:^^N M^y:S:S 3)A»[^il ft'IW wirati^rgnnsF '3'^ "41<(l<>1't|, •cSi'flly'16, (s<^iy^< .^.jl.l'^'.:3;1.^Jl<s1.j. SII^ITiR? (Tpty^I) SB : Hon'ble Shn Manindra NIohah Shrivastava, J. inyrim oir 22-07-2011 Shri M. K. Sinha, counsel for | Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Pa< Heard. This petition has been filed] dated 27-04-2011 passed by the| Revision No.19/2011, by which, th^ rejecting application for grant of int^ri FirstClass, Kartalain M.J.C.No.14/3 Learned counsel for the petitj had submitted authenticated list No.32 certified by the Registrar of for supurdnama has been rejected the petitioner has not filed credible) is the Director of the Company. Le) other reason assigned for rejectij recorded that the petitioner is notj submits that the petitioner had the fact that vehicle is owned by Director of the Company, but the C^ view towards rejectionof the applic^f On the other hand, learned itself shows that the petitioner has| effect that he is the Director of thei Company to apply for interim custoijly °tellii'l<i)"f wwS ^ 1yA tfa<^l< ^ailmsn^r fhe petitioner. ^el Lav^er for the State |by the petitioner aggrieved by order |Sessions Judge, Kobra, in Criminal petitioner's revision against the order custody by the Judicial Magistrate ^011, has been rejecfed. joner submits that though the petitioner Directors of the Company in Form pompanies, the petitioner's application t?y the Court below on the ground that Idocuments to show that the petitioner irned counsel further submits that the ig application is that the Court has co-operating in the investigation. He all the documents with regard to Company and the petitioner is the >urt below has adopted hyper-technical Uion. Statecounsel submitted that the order failed to produce the document to the Company and duly authorized by the of the vehicle. subitnitted ftie i,<n<IWira— /140—2/2011—1,56,000. -:a aa "'ai R!5S s9 'S9 SC9 ¥^ ^M9 ^3 4- ^s.» \;,. <j-tt| «^|M|yq,.'®fllyi|<c,ft<7lld^< j^M\^3.bJWL -2r WifecfrT'TORff ^ feiCT ^fNgR St^; After going through the ord Judge and the learned Magistrate ^rs passed by the learned Sessions it appears that several documents, which have been placed on recjord, herein also, which relates to petitioner's status in the Company, i . placed, the applicatiori has been <•--.-... tf?-i'&;:1' •> _^ ».._ ... . ^ _ petitionej;s.ubmits that the petitionei UjC (vere placed, as the originals were not rejected. Learned counsel for the is prepared to satisfy the Magistrate be released for interim custody b\j regard to furnishing of solvent sure^ when ordered by the Court below. es. ..'>'.by,i|alqci^,the ori^inaf particulars cjf Directors contained in Form No.32, • certified bythe Begi§t[arof Compan] In view of:the-statement disposecl off with an observation particulars of Directors contained in] [nade above, this petition is finally jthat if the petitioner places original |Form No.32, certified by the Registrar of Companies, for perusal of the ccjincerned Magistrate, the vehicle shall imposing appropriate condition with y for production of the vehicle as and Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge