IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASWRK CHHATTxsaARH Smak , ‘ Banch Crimina! Miscellaneous Pefi‘é‘ien No. ’3 of 2006 PETITEON UNDER SECTION 4%F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 1. Gopina‘rh Sa’m‘f, 5/0 Lam Laxmi Pmsad Samf, Aged obou‘f 60 years‘ PETITIONERS: 2. A‘ok Kumar Sam‘f, 5/0 Gopinofh Sam‘f, Aged abou‘f 33 year-s. BoTh residen'rs of Gondpam, Police 5Ta‘l'ion: ClTy Komall, Tehsil and Districl: Bilaspur, Chha++isgarh ~ Versus — \ Slaw 0f Chha‘l'?isgarh, Through The Slalioa House Officar, Police Sla‘lion: Cify Kotwali, Bllaspur, Chhal-Tisgarh. /"W XI-HC—78 HW,W,W His 6% 200 WTm [.4 I.’.£:l.v.{9.; WW(W) WWW mmm WWTWW WWI¥WW %a%man%w w M r w 15.02.2007 ' Shri V.C. Ottalwax, 0 Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy Heaxd on admission. This pstih’on is dime No.192/2005 by the IXth Additional $e§sions Judge (FTC), B' pur. The aforesaid Criminal Revision dated 29.7.2005 passed in Cn'minal Judicial Magistxate First Class, tea against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed in Criminal Revis was filed against the ord Casg No.495!2004 by Bilaspur. i It appsars that by Magisu‘ate has framad of IPC against the petition by the petitioners, but the evisional Court denied interfen'ng Wlth the order, connrming the framing of charges by the Magistrate under the afommenn‘oned actions of IPC. Learned counsel for under Section 392 were petitioners submits that the charges d on the basis of 161 statement of Nitin Soni, which iavas teen ed on 17/ 12/ 2000. His submission is that Nin'n Som' had died duh‘ing the pendeucy of the Criminal Case; therefore, the charges hauled on the basis of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. should be quashed, because, ultimately, nobody would be there to ‘prove the afoxesaid charges, which axe framed on his evidence. , P.T.O, mnsel for the petitioners. . Advocate General for the State. otder dated 29/7/2005, the learned s under Secuons 448, 294 and 392 This older was challenged in revision i ‘ e c e & e e e e . e Wm mmowa'w)