IN THE HISI COURT DICATURE AT JABAI.SOR-M.P. '^:'^t'^SSS'S ai^^i^E^'isj -•^ "ISS""" ! CKIKINM.&PPEALNO.\^lQOF2000 UNDER SECTIOM 341(1) OF'EiE CODE OF CRIMIN&L PROCEDURE 1973 APSELLANT (APPLICANT) ; Sunil Sarawgi.s/o Sanat Kumar Sarawgi, aged 30 years,r/o Bayalband Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur H.P. VERSUS BESPOHDENTS tNON APPIiICANTS) r 1. Raraakant Agrawal.s/o Ratanlal Agrawal, aged 25 years,r/o Qirdhar Niwas.Hear Pratap Club, Gondla,P.S.Gond.i.a,li.Lstt» Bhandara(Haharastra) 2. Oajadfaar Agrawal,s/o (SS-rd^arilal Agrawal,r/o Amgaon P.s.Aragaon Distt Bha&daratMaBarastra) -~ 3» Ramnarain Agrawal.s/o Balram Das Agrawal,r/o Near Gayatrj. Handir, Y. Sainta Colony Raipar.P.S.Kotwali / • •• Raipur Distrj-ct Raipur M.P. ,,'<^ '•^ --^ c^-^- i^i0^^^^2 ^ CriminaJ. Appeal No.1570/2000 i m^ ^nnw: ®T(B » "/^WTO/ l/^r'^- 'j--~ -~-'-—':'—v-rv~ T' 1-12-2000 Shri Braraod Verna, leamed eouasel £or t.he appellaB^y i Heard. ' . - ; . | j Being aggrieved by tbe J order passed by^ the lewer Court i _Q • ; partial.ly rejeeting the apEellani's ! appl.l.cation filed under sect.l.on {340 of the Code of erj.minal |Procedure , the appellant has If.lled this appeal undier Seetion J341 o£ the Cpde of Criminal (Procedure. ^" <iEERJ~?Sp3—9i!9I—80,009 contd. • * o XI-HC-22 •T'sT'PP T.T7?. HiT ??°r: B .-•." ^.^^K^i^ilVK Ufl TMAf.iu. '^s[^wvPijVsvaSBis^faK^K'^"^'', ^.', ;nT"".^.',-''",r:,i Cbhattisgartt, atlaspur. 3(i^?r 43i* HiGH COORT OF M, P. JAi ALPUR IIHCTI aiiich^...^....i^}J3J^^::j •^-^•-t-^--^f^^^ •"*. .? sn' sSJ'--^ i R(.b<tsr' an^I^iT h-U<h SDcCT ?b*-it<)i •yf^a sii^r'reiWBfTO -2- ^ iti'qfai'Hin *<t*<%ff'^^><l <Rtl^$« iT3lfe[«I»lI^T The non-appllcant4)rffc3. nade an appllcatlpa under SeeUon 439(2) of the Cdde | of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of thp ball grahted ln favour o£ tbe appellant, aldngwlth the said appl-tcation, he filed an affidavtt of hia ewn'sea." Ultimately, tbe Court foiiind that the aa3.et affidavlfe was false cu»d eo'ntaa,ntf4fai.se avermeats* The appllcation for cancell^l of bai'l was rejected and ori the applAcatl.on o£ ,the present appllcanfc/appellant,) the satd deponent of tfae, affldavlt has beea ordered to be prosecuted bttt his son wbo tlad used that affldalvit is not belng Brosecuted aoi| bas been ordered to be prosecuted. Tberefore, fche »»» Gon'td* »•< tlon aii^r'^T Riticft ^tt^ti Sbllfq»^rf^fl Crinina^^Rpeal-No.1570/2000 %l$yK<aqal(<yifyi<tff)^~ <^11illwftiif *<IN^'if fs^ •(.foi^.K ^; sipro S^y :. ^ »0. tbils t|ie appellaflt bas come to Undisputedly, [c.twhy-- . .. -' ! , ' ; . j^against -the said son tbat| ha4 sworna.fa.1ee are made againsft the sia.1^ conspiracY 6r in 1 affidavi-t, >he Gould not Ttie lower Court was So far as. the ] conceraed, after. he:artng,| 1 ttie appsl-ta-nt, I aa unablje in relatioa t6 t.hem .i.s be|<3 interference. ' ? •Ttis apReal Coyrt. appel.t.ant dld not. level w^ be knew tbat his fatber t. ttnless tfcie allegations son tbat eitber in <><- II ' '-^- Jl tte absol|utely connlvania®Tfaad3W>rn a false or'dered to be prosecut6d» -.justified. o|ther respondents are |the learaed counse}. for - to* hold that tbe order or calls for any -^ beld 1s -^l.sn.lssed< Sd/- Acting Ghief Justice ^