y IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR AT CHHATTISGARH c^^p, -^^ CMMINAL APFBAL N0. OF 2006 APRBLLANT -'^ ilESPONDENTS w^r^^ ^^ State of Chhattisgarh Through S. H.O. , P.S. Katghora, Distt Korba (CG) VBRSUS 1. Irshad Husain Khan S/o I. H. Khan Aged about 56 years, R/o Rajnandgaon Forest Colony, Quaite Bhata. 2. Ashok Kuinar Dubey, S/o Satyadeve- Dubey, Aged ^Soiit 35 years, R/o Mohline Bhata, Katghora, ^ Distt Korba (CG) R. K. Sidar, S/o T. R. Sidar, Aged about 36 years, R/o Forest Colony Sukya. 4. P. C. Kurre, S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged about 51 years, R/o Darri, Distt Korba (CG) 5. Ajay Kuniar Kaushik, S/o Ramayan Prasad, Aged about 35 years, R/o Vasrakshak, Darri. APPLICATION FOR GRANTjQF LBAVETO APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 378 (31 'AND MEMORANDUM OP APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (irSiF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROGBDURE. 1973. —78 an^iw ft'ii'* ^w sn^i sbtfi'* *n*«'(T^iW^i ~T5E[ •<|]<11<'1'11, Otll'y'IS, SqWI'Hy .!ASi.:.S.^. t^. W^ 200 3TI^!?I TT^V (^3^S?) WdW^lfetSIltn SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Moftan Shrivastava. J. 10-09-2010 Sediions Shri Satish Gupta, Heard. This appiication under Se4 of leave to appeai against the juct Magistrate, Firet Ciass, Katghor^ leamed triai Court has acquitte( commission of offence under 34ofi.p.C. Leamed counsei for the 'vvrongiy disbeiieved the testimon^ though the same is unimpeact corroborated by the tesrimony another witness-Girdhari Dewangfa has wrongiy considered Uie vers| the other witnesses deciared ho^ have supported the case of Vi\ accused. Learned Court beiow h4; evidence and while considering ^i recordeu that ttie accused for vioiation of forest iaws and tl considerable deiay and there is has aiso taken into consideratioit his cross examination that seitt Govemi^ent Advocate for ttie State/appiicant. rto cbt^lfif'^'1 'V^f Tf^^ ^^R ^siRnan^i |tion 378 (3) Cr.P.C has been fried for grant gment dated 8/11/05 passed by the Judiciai in Criminai C-ase No.611/04 by which the 3 the non-applicants from the charges of 384, 3%, 420, 467, and 193 read with ^pplicant argued that the Court beiow has of the compiainant-Prakash Jaiswal (PW3) habie, inspired confidence and tes aiso bf his sister (PW4) as aiso statement of jan. It is also submitted that the Court beiov» |on of Mohd. Sharif (PW 9) and that though tfrile yet in their cross examination that they \e prosecution regarding presence of the s in its order anaiysed the prosecution he testimony of Prakash Jaiswai (Pw3) has had framed case against the compiainant hat the report teeif has been lodged after safefactory expianation. The Court beiow the testimonv of the concemed witness In :ure was made and case with regard to -,^a.A.. '^ .^-.^•^^F?-. %, :^ / %J-..^^—78 sv^v v< h-n'sh •(r.^-'-i^i'spTOi *(l*iWI <»>*<iqa ~FSf '<<|t|i<nq, aial'M'ie, faciiyy ..(3?..®f...'Ajp...-..s^e.Z^TF1200 SiI^I TT3R7 (1,cli^al<^I) WTW^lfelSD^T -2- possession of ganja is pending members of his famiiy. Learned contradictions ffi the statement —i* sister-Hemkum.aij on n-jateriai as(}ects vanous and taken into consideration testimony of ^?oR8: Stiarif (PW9)| ground that he is interested witnejss rurtherthat he did not know as to| case diary statement with regard i have perused the judgrm Court beiovif has considered the tt scmtiny and examination of the ^ the conclusion that the proseci|iiion reasonabie duubt. The finding of the learn^u perversity and the view taken is | the evidence appearing on recoiti. appiication for grant of ieave rejected. chl<ltd4)'rl 'W^if if^^ <^!^1< ^3ifa*(3ii^[ [and other cases are pending against the Rourt beiow has aiso recorded that there is |of complainant- Prakash Jaisvvai and his The Court beiow 'nas aiso considered contradictions and improbabiiities in the 1 and the same has been disbelieved on the andan employee of the complainant and |what transpired and there is omission in Ws 1:0 money transaction. fcnt of the ieamed Court below. The tearned hateriai availabie on record and after carefuS ^ame, the iearned Court below has come to has faiied to prove its case beyond iu Court beiow does not su'ffer frorn any possibie and piausibie upon assessment of Therefore, i am not inciined to aitow the 1:0 appeai. Accordingiy, the application is Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge "•>-•-::..';••-•r.. .' — .i'^v^SS.Si-.