f ...-y. '•syis^aingle Qenc ^"^J' -"• *?- DI THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR !^r Cr.M.P.NO. g51 /2011 APPLICANTS [Accused] .-.^5^. ^•'^w^^^ ^v"^s:^> 1) Mehtar Nishad S/o Shri Pardeshi Nishad, aged about 70 years, R/o village-Ghorda, Tehsil 8s District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2) Lala Ram Soni, S/o Maksudan Soni, aged about 77 years, R/o Kilapara, Town, Tehsil 8s District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT [Prosecutor] State of Chhattisgarh through the the Police Station- Lalbag, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) REVESION PETITION UWDER SECTION 4^TbF THE CODE OF CMMIANAL PROCEDURE '^ -yer "i||'t|l<>t'lt;Wfllwi®;f^'ni'^S' (3-.^P.(Mo,?n//.( .'af '.'?' MsA. 'Svf^ !M'1-^ WHCTI <n*«<:»> an^rTxy (i?ii'"<';r) i i. sn^r^Biftmw 'gqr sn^r ^*< ^. •< wnw^teian^ SB : Hon'ble ShriManindra Mohan S ^rateriCT^pwi'i -f: sffii'. fe-sfrfWH ^w irivastava, J. 12-12-2011 Shri V. K. Sharma, counsel for th^ petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer fo|- the State;_ Heard. I This petition underSection 482 ()fthe Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the crimin|al proceedings pending against thern. Learned counsel for the petition commission of offencg under Section 3 srs submits that a FIR alleging ^9/34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioners and otber accuse|d persons as back as on 23-09- 1992. The investigation was continued fi|)r a long time until charge sheet was filed in the Court leading to framing Qn 07-07-2008. It is submitted that though, more than three and half year 3f charge against the petitioners have elapsed, tilldate, only sixwitne witnesses have been examined. Learrjed counsel for the petitioners submits that delay is not attributable to c s out of total26 prosecution ny of the act of the petitioners. He submits that in these circumstances, |the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is found thatthe charges were fr^med againstthe petitioners on 07-07-2008. The petitioners are on bail) ibeen examined by the prosecution. Look| remained pending for three and half yes| ?een examined, the proceedings in the trij Some of the witnesses have ng to the fact that the trial has r and only six witnesses have ^l is far from being satisfactory. 'or the present, 1 deem it expedient to dir^ct the concerned trial Court to oncludethe trial as expeditiously as po^sible. After expiry of period of ^<f^T^1]Wr;(RRWg—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^5t -!41'41<rt-4, tyfl'y«i<e, RK'IWK •»' nmcii a»*<i<n '^;:s^ 'sy 311^1 •q^; ('^3^?) an^i^ifiFiN wy gn^i »^flq) .^<-^ -J»-.X-: ^.s^ ^^(M'na?e?^ 'rt-i.s.aW^""'" ^snwTiftnaii^t V six months from today, the trial Courll the status of the ease and reasoil tOtheFwis&nSy^ncluded. >»fl'!s; Vvfth^the^foresaid direction, th| .Siftwi-^^.^'1. .: . . ' ^ ,casei- !n?,,tn9li,is not eoncluded ei ^^••^'-^ Y:s"^'i!»t-^ • -~aRBroaGh4hi§^@urtagain. shall send areport with regard to is for non-conclusion of trial, if petition is-QnaJly disposed off.In peditiously, the petitioners may <hl<li-t<ri^'W:WT?':l Ri.'<il <fa«TC ^ ^F': *st ! • : §d/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge aiw.fli 6A<tiiis»ii<.iii,wanRIira—FS/i40—2/2011—1,50,000. BB KIE1