3a W, Wang, W31 mmm mmm mm wm asaimauéw SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan 'i 9-1 0-201 0 Shri Hemant Gupta, counsel f0‘ the petitioner. Lawyer for the State. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Pane! Heard. This petition under Section 485. ofthe Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 3007-2010 passed by the 2“ Additionat Sessions Judge, Baloda Revision N021 of 2010, by which, th the Judicial Magistrate First Ciz No.358/2009 rejecting petitioner‘s ap CrrPrCw has been confirmed. Assailing the correctness and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biiait Sessions Judge, Baioda Bazar, Dis petitioner argued that the reasons re purported exercise of power conf‘ Cr.P.C. are not reievant. Learned co that as the trial could not be completed within a period of sixty days from the hrst date fixed for taking evide Shrivastava, J. Bazar, District Raipur in Criminai e order dated 11-05—2010 passed by ass, Biiaigarh in Criminat Case oiication under Section 437(6) of the validity of the orders passed by the )arh as well as by the 2’” Additional :rict Raipur, learned counsel for the :orded in writing by the Magistrate in erred under Section 437(6) of the .rnsel for the petitioner further argued nce in the case, the petitioner was entitled to grant of bail as provided under Section 437(6) ofthe Cr.P.Cr He further argued that the manner in which the trial is being deiayed on account of non—examination of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable period and this aspect ought‘to have been taken into consideration by the Courts below, which has not been taken into cotsideration. Learned counsel for the mm C‘VMymgqz’ bioW 200 ‘WW (W) XI-HC—78 ‘ . CKMX'WéW/“wlb V WW 1137200 mm(a§haw) Maw mmm WM§WW petitioner relies upon the decision (if this Court in the case of Sim. Godawan' Bai & Others Vs. Sfate Of C.G., 20M (2) C.G.L,J. 135. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the u Magistrate rejected the application L vide its order dated 11-05-2010 by reasons in writing and therefore, th order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor a case f r quashing the said order under inherent powers under Section 482 the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that while rejecting the application u er Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.Cl, gravity of the offence as also other evant considerations have taken into consideration in View of the law la down by this Court in the case of Azul Bagga Vs. State ofChhattisgar , 2009(3) C.G.L.J. 448. l have gone through the orde ‘ passed by the Magistrate dated 11-05-2010 as well as the order p ssed by the revisional Court on 30-07-2010. Both the Courts below have c I dered the gravity of offence. The Magistrate in its order has aiso taken i o consideration that the petitioner, who was a Sarpanch and public s rvant, is alleged to have been committed offence of cheating and cri inal breach of trust by withdrawing an amount of Rs.2,21,434!— from the ubiic fund by forging a withdrawal from and has also considered the ov rail impact of such offence. The reasons which have been recorded b the Magistrate for rejecting the application under Section 437(6) oft e Cr,P,C. cannot be said to be irrelevant in view of the judgment of t e this Court in the case of Ami Bagga (supra). der Section 4327(6) of the Cr.P.C. ording just, proper and relevant t c l o i @ XI-HC——78 Crmgm» éq'L u) mmfaw WWW mm (ma) mmm ~3 ,. WW WWW $ aimm in, the case of Smi. GodaLIari Bai & Others (supra), the Magistrate rejected the application 0n the greund that the offence is punishable with life impriscnment thout taking int0 consideration any other circumstance. lt is not the ca e here. The Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court taking into consideration the other relevant circumstances rejected the petiti ner’s application under Section 437(6) of the Cr;P.C‘ In the opinion of this Cou , no case for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made ut. Accordingiy, the petition is di missed. Sdl- "vastava Man‘mdfa Mohan Sh“ Tumane Judge I