IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CR, M. P. N0. -32-2- / 2011 ACOUITTAL APPEAL No. / 2011 S"< ,LL> t-/ ?-^$ fE3 c;. ^A . APPLICANT/ APPELLANT •^ .fA' J^J^" ^^•--v"" ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS s-..' ^ 3rSC T: '..' V n-. '^ v ?-^ ./;^; '.;'• wl ^.'" £S.: Q^;v <S?g -^ <st X °ss NON_-APPUCANT RESPONDENT Deepak Sharma, S/o Vasudeo Sharma, Aged about - 28 years P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Raigrah (C.G.) APPLIC.ATION FQR_GRANT_QFLEAVE_TO_APPEAL UNDER SECTIO]^. 378(31 AND^MEMORANDUM^OF'APPEAL,UNDER/SECTIQN_378U) OF,THECODE_QF_CRI_MINALPRQCEDURE,_1973 ^ ^ ) e-; •I Sa ^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Cr.M.P. No. 322/2011 APPLICANT/ State ofChhattisgarh APPELLANT Versus NON-APPLICANT Deepak Shamia Appearance: Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Dy.G.A. forthe State. ORAL ORDER (8.08.2011) On the report of complainant Asif Khan the prosecution filed charge sheet against the respondent/accused for committing offences under Section 341, 294 and 506 of IPC. The prosecution filed the charge sheet on 23/11/2007 and the particulars of the charge was explained to the accused on i. The matter was thereafter posted for recording of evidence of prosecution witoesses and summons were issued. (2) On 11/11/2008 the prosecution witnesses remained absent and similar fact has been recorded in the order sheet of the trial court on 20/02/2009, 25/05/2009, 13/08/2009, 7/11/2009, 5/03/2010 and 17/05/2010. (3) On finding that the witnesses have remained absent on number of occasions, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence on 26/08/2010 after observing that a counter case has also been S^fegistered against the complainant and in the said counter case, the r';, "^^^^rtA=^iy^^£^.^T^ ^ •Y. z. accused (complainant ofthe present case) has been acquitted for want ofprosecution evidence. (4) This application seeking leave to appeal has been preferred on the ground Ifaat when the witnesses failed to appear in response to the summons issued by the trial court, the said witnesses should have been issued bailable warrant and tfaereafter warrant of arrest and without proceeding in this manner closer ofthe prosecution evidence was illegal. (5) As has been found above, there is case and counter case against both the parties. The witnesses have failed to appear in both the matters and after observing this the trial court did not thought it proper to grant more opportunity to the prosecution for production of witaesses. (6) The offences are under Section 341, 294 and 506 of IPC. The trial is pending since four years and the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence. (7) In the opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused for want ofprosecution evidence. (8) No case for grant ofleave to appeal is made out. (9) Consequentfy, the application is dismissed. Sd/- ^ prashantKumarMishra Judge v^ r E?-'??^.'^KSi@?UA<WU*uuBnii i ' ' •^vi^SS^^-f^^^^^-if^— €?