7!mg-,vVw‘qy'mmrnvrwvzv‘n/w" A : ~c0““T.,-r £ i hihawusGMx-i aumc} mw, ‘vu‘uBKL I. ‘ ‘ 1Aswgt 3 V 3‘25, { ‘1- IN TEE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPgki mmmm REVIsmN N0. 366 _03 2000: )‘mgle xiencn W‘“mm?‘ ‘ CF0000088395 REVI SI ONLIS‘I’; RESEONDW T: CGMPLAINANT: RAVINIER KUMAR/ NANDA, s/o_Namaath Nanda.Aged 50 years. é R/o Reesai Paga, Tahsil and Distt. DHAMTARI ‘ ' (M;P) tr : .WRW S- 1. SMTJUGGA navy/'1‘ 4 Wife of 'shri Rarxulal Sanklacha. Med 55 years. LAL sHRI RANUASANmAcEA, S/o Late Mishrilal sanklacha Aged 72 years, . . Both Residents of sadar Bazar, DHAMTARI ,(My); e SHRx GULZAR KHANV: S/o Gafcor Khan, Aged 25 years. R/o Proprietor Guljar Auto Electric— g a1, Bombay Garrage Easter Reed, 7 " - District DWAR; (Mm): 4. TEE STAKE. OF MADI'KA PWSH. ‘l‘hmugh Golle‘cyorhD‘HAMTARI (mp), cRIMmAL REVIsxoN UNDER sewn»: 397/401, cam op / CRIMNAL ?RO$DURE H / . 3Wg W, ' Chhattiagarh Bllaspur Cr R No. 306 of 2000 x , ‘13 . 12.2000 "Applicarit by Shri-K v geard. The applicant. who. s a complainaht, in a the trial-Court to on 82‘ of the Indian e .non—applicents <\ vision- Qfiled by\_the ‘Smt. JuggarDevi ahd sional Court held that in View of the bar under of Cr1m1na1 Procedure the . Justified :Ln taklng the allowed the rev1sion and The submisslon ofgthe- lea appliéant 'is :tha’t, 'a‘s th pgoperty. of 'the appl i'cant no. rand 3»in‘connivanc > tried;to:play a iraud an “the Court’belmv'Was unju ‘ revi sion” at” thi’s :‘prim'ary‘ K’. Mi shra, Advocat e . privatehomplaint \persila ,take cognizance under se ,Reglstratlon Act agalnst ‘no. 1,2 and 3v. but. on a J _ non-applicants no. > 12‘ and‘ ‘Ranulal Sanklacha the re that : the trial 7Court 3has i . GRPRI—FS/242 2/20()0—3O,()004 ection 195 of the Code trlal Court was not nizance, it eccordingly I osed the proceedings . ed counsel ‘ for' the matter relates to the e and the non-applicants’ with each other have e cheated' the applicant . f~ied in“ allowing the ' tage .' A Unfortunatelythis-argument loseesight of fact” / E taken any cognizance of d d i c h e v‘ g c l 'n d i e v O W m x a1 200 amt m (13W) kmww‘ auésr WWW W$1€R é; 311Wm The ur't-beowLis justified in‘ allowing the révislém‘ betitien; ;, nhi‘ evismn; petitin is‘ di SmiSsed . ' Thakuh‘ _ ¢/o\y C l s: o ‘ ‘ mac*78 3a W, 1mm, am, \k W m v WEE 200 anawym- (W) % mmm Mmfaia; r Wm fzém tmm the matter £or cemmlsslor of the offence punishable :- under sections Aza 467,468 and 471 of the Indian l ' Penal Cadep The trial Courtrtoakwcognizance of . ~ the mauér'in atelatian MLASectumu82sof’therladian/ r ' - 1 :53 Regi sératian z e Cgiurt-belowjhas given cagent reascm fqar observ1ngzthatmthe cagnizance ceuld nGt -‘ ‘ be takenrby,;the triai; Cgkrtdn ‘absen’aer:.o£acompllancei ¥ pf theéiwisgénéjaf'xséé ién;;_95_:ofxthe cadeiof‘ ~ - '~Crimin‘ai Wrocésilir‘eav cf: = . LS!» A . .also s bmits that as mlzar Khan has not preferréé‘érln} re :Lsion, the revisional Court couldngt grant-any reli f toxhim..~ iln the opinion ‘ ‘ ‘\ - pf tEis?é6t§rt’£”i§rthe fi' dir‘igfryéf “the learned“ Courtivbeléwis‘fthét’the ognlzance could not be . takeni$12the éfial ’éo’urt then it weuld be too much W MM to that the tter would say Wkk m tter stand olosedAandw cognizanceLw taken'agalnst the third. who did not * prefer rev1slon.