r lfiidi^ ^ /^" -..- ^fe. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG^RH AT BIVySPUR Petitioner Complalaant Respondents Accused Vs. 1. 2. Cr. M.P. No. 434 OF 2009 Mahesh Vadhvaai, S/o Ashudamal Vadhvani Aged about 42 years, R/o Civil Liaes, Raipur (CG). State of Chh^tisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur District Raipur (CG), Raoiesh Kedia S/o Abirchaad Kedia, Aged about 53 years, Proprietor of M/s Sefh Baashidhar Kedia Rice Processing Plaat, Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDBR SECTION 482 OP THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973. (SB :Honyble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Smt. Pouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 1. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 21/8/2009) 1. Heaid. 2, Learaed couxisel for fhe petitioner frequenUy admitted fhat her revision for enhaaceinent of fhe sentence has been adinitted vide order dated 30/3/09 only on the ground fhat respondent No. 2 has been acquitted m Criminal Appeal No. 15/09 vide judgment dated 30/3/09. 3. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner fiirther subiaits that preseat petitoner has also jSled leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of flie Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 agarnst fhe judgment of acquittal pgKssed by fhe appellate Court, After passiag of fhe judgment of acquitfeal rvisional court has disniissed tiie revision for enhaacem.ent of the seatence. Leanied counsel for the petitioner also submits that bofh the orders have been passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur. Learaed Sessions Judge, was under obligation to decide bofh the cases nunibercd as Crimiaal /^u^ - z- -•'.'" Appeal No. 15/09 and Criminal Revision No. 12/09 simulteaeousty but patentiy learaed Sessions Judge has coinmitted an iltegalily by not deciding bofh the cases simiiltaaeously, after passmg the judgment of acquittal present revision was not maititeinable aad order ofjudgment of acquittal has also been challenged by the petitioner. In titie ligtit of aforesaid factual scenario the present petition is stands disposed of although petitioner may redress fhe grievaiices in the petition for leave to appcal. ^ T.P. Sharma Judge ^