HIéH CCJUET 9F CHHATTI5£§ARH AT BILA$1PUR Criminal Misc, Fatwa!!! Nah 423 af 21393 53 3 m ‘._H£nii?!§ yxifiifg §§¥§¢¢1§,_‘91 M. ktiii-mer5 1. Kumar- Singh: San of Ehms‘rmm aged atmm 45 year-s, resickanf of viiiage $oputpurt Foiice 5+mion: Pithoam, District : Mahammund {64%} 2.‘ Sukchqrm, Son ef Santmm, aged ghou’r 35 years, Secrefary, Viiiage Panchaya?: Gopatgur, P¢lice Sfu‘tbn :PiThoum, Di$th fviahasamund (6.6.) Vs. Rgspmdgnf STme of Chha’t-tisgqrh 'through Thg ?.5:Pi?houra, Dist Mahasamund (£16.) CRIMINAL REVI$ION UNDE SECTION 482 OF THE CQD£ QF CRihKiNAL ?ROCEDU§E k Mr. VK, Pandey, (:ounsel far 'the getwionera Ms Sangee‘m Mishra, F'anéi iawyeri far 'i‘he Sm’w. QRAL (Jana: gassed on 5*“ September, 2008) This pzfifion is directed agairm‘ tha order datzd. 24.&,200E ?g5sad by +hz' Firs+ Addificmai Sessians Judgg, Mahasamundr in Criminal Revi5ion No. 54/07 by which the. learned Fir-st Addii‘iana! Sessions Judge. affirmmg the ardar framing charge; paged by ihe. Judicial Magigmie. Firs‘i Class, Mahammund vidz a.rdgr- dated 11.9.07, in Criminal Case No. ZZWOé whereby the. learnad Judinia! Magistrate Firsf Class has framed iha ¢harge againgi‘ the patiiionew far cammission of offence under Sggtiens 3 (Z) (d) and 7 (1) (a) {2) mt the Essential cgmmadaim m and seciian. 6 (5) t}. 12 (s-A) of the. Chhai-ii5garh Khadya Padar‘fh 5mwq‘inik Nagrik Apourii Scheme, 1991. Z. During the. nourse of arguments, Married counsa! appearing far the pgiitioners wants in withdraw this peiition with liberty fit; misjz the gmund and agimi'e. fhe mattgr' before ihe trial court 3. Parmissian i$ graniacl. 4. Amer-dimly, tha peiitian is di$mi$$¢d (is withdrawn wiih fhe abmve failed libgr‘ly. Sdl- T. P. Sharma , ‘ ’ Judge ‘