m THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CRIBUNAL REVISIOK NO.S^ ^ /2010 -:, PErtmOW UNDBR SECTION 397/401 OF CODB OF CRnUNAL PROCEDURE PETITIONER ..., a Biymohan Dewangan S/o Birbal Dewangan, Age - 20 years, R/o ••~^..^^^"^^valase~ SQSm' p-s- Pratappur, , <i. ^•;'''"'<',52>;^>r-Distt. - SargLya (C.G.) ^••^ >::'-"^^'" -? ? . f^-. \->- VERSES RESPOKDEHT State of Chhattisgarh Throiigh - Police Station PratappurDistt. - Sarguja (C.G.) The Supra named Petitioner Being a^rieved with the order dated 22.10.2^10 Passed by the UpperSession Judge (F.T.C.) Pratappur in S.T* No. 199/2010 in which the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejectga against the petitioner so the pedtioner prefer the revision petition against the aforesaid order on the following good grounds amongst others: - 'S^ ^TTqRTO, '^ftWTS', T°«yfiy'J,< £^.-.^Q..-...S.:^..'..o <tii'l<i<-i'lfl-< 'wwS ^ 'fe^t 'dw^: ^sifiman^i SB: Hon'bte Shri r»1anindraMohdnShrivastava.J. Sectitn 29-10-2010 Shri Neeraj Mehta, counsei Shri Ashish Gupta, Panei Lat Heard. The impugned order datefl appiication under Section 311 CrPCp the submission that though just| application under Section 311 iearned Court below has rejected tjii purport and the object under witness has been examined, the Learned counsel for the Statls leamed Court beiow, it is revealed application has been rejected counse! has been engaged, prayer Upon perusal of the impugi beiow has recorded that on ai and only on the ground of change granted. The re-examination was it cannot be said that the only ^i witness was, change of counsei. 311 CrPC shows that on speciflc is^i re-examination ofthe witness. drPC ffie mer^iy' nM asp^cts f|>r ttie appiicant. jivyer for the State. 22/10/2010 by which the appiicant's has been rejected, has been assailed on and vatki grounds were stated in the for re-examination of the witness, application unduly restricting the scope. 311 CrPC on the ground that once ttie apk>iication was iiabte to be rejected. tat|s submits that frorn the perusal of order of that the Court beiow has recorded that the on the ground that ttie applicant's new for re-examination could not be allowed. order, it is found iftat the tearned Court ip^cts, the witness has been cross examined |of counsei, such permission could not be ^ought on specific points by the applicant. ^ound Tor seeking re-examinaUon of the the copy of application under Seotion is^ues and aspects, the applicant sought for ?]IB^T? TgCTTS4,(rCTii'lt'T—r.S.l47—2/2010—1,00,000. sn^iw "I. DBHpli ^ST •^lAlld<<, ©•al-M'Ko,fsjcll-Hy ..&.:i.:....^.....i&.%:/.!2 20 -»?- ^Nwih iwwff 4 fe^t ^R?R thfet Taking into consideration grave nature which may resuit consideration that the order of thet every points for which re-examinat interfere with the order. ConsequenUy, impugned Sesstons Judge (FTC), Pratappurj remanded back to the concemed afresh, in accordance with iaw. Certified copy by tomorrow.l the applicant is being tried for offence of ti life imprisonment and aiso taking into ICourt beiow does not deai witti each and ion of witness was sought, 1 am inciined to dfder dated 22/10/2010 passed by Upper District-Sarguja is set aside. The case is Sourt for re-consideration of the application Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ?rre^r ^ q"^TTc?4, t^^:cFif^ —FS.147—2/2010—1,00,000.