KN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 400/2009 Suresh Kumar Dagla, Aged abut 32 ysars, S/ 0 Lam S.L. Dalga, R/o Village g Lajlunga, Tahsil—Lailunga, - Distt. Raigarh {C._G.)‘ State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh —Spceial Estabh'shmant cf POEC€ for Oi}ic€ of Lokayukt, Bilaspur (C.G.). I F CRIMINAL PROCDURE. (SB :Ho’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Ravish erma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, P.L. for the Siam/Respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on‘ 6/8/2009) . This p6tition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short: the code). Petitioner is challenged the legality of the order dated 15/4/2009 passe by the learned Ist Upper Sessions Judge, [Specia Judge under Pmvention of Comption Act, 1988, Bilaspur in unregistered petition. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Suresh Kumar ‘, i, Dagla was prosecuted in special criminal Case NO. 7/ 99 and was dually acquitted by Special Judge, Bilaspur vide judgment dated 17/9/03 in which the Special Judge has directed that Ex. P—22 sale deed may be returned to purchaser on his demand. Leained counsel for the petitioner further submits that present petitioner Suresh Kumar Dagla son of S.L. Dagla, the accused of aforementioned case is a purchaser of the property by Ex. R22 and when he applied for return of document to him then Special Judge has illegally rejected his application on the ground that Ex. P—22 name of purchaser en Petitioner Versus Resgondent PETTION U S 482 OF THE CODE O n V , d l has been shown sudesh Kumar and not Suresh Kunmr although present petitioner has tiled the amdavit in support of his application and specificaily mentioned that by typing mistake in stead of Suresh Kumar Dagla the name has been recorded as Sudesh Kumar same is bonafide mistake, 4. Copy of the order impugned, copy of judgment dated 17/9/03, copy of ..-the application for return of document and copy of amdavit perused. While acquitting the 3 accused persons learned Special Judge has speciiically directed that sale deed Ex. P—22 may retuJn to the purchaser on his demand but it has not been specifically mentioned that Ex. P-22 be returned to the present petitioner Suresh Kumar Dagla. After lapse of 5 years Suresh Kumar Dagla has nled an apphcation for returning of the document in which it has been mentioned that in the said document his name has been erroneously written as Sudesh Kumar the mistake is bonaiide mistake. 5. Present petitioner has not preferred any appeal relating to the direction of return of the property under Section 4S4 of the Code. gt 6. Order impugned reveals that purchaser of the property shown in Ex. P- 22 is a Sudesh Kumar not Suresh Kumar unless name is corrected as Suresh Kumar by any correction deed or any decree of the Court. It is dimcult to hold that claimants Suresh Kumar and Sudesh Kumar are one and same and purchaser shown in documents is Suresh Kumar not Sudesh Kumar. In absence of such material court below has rightly rejected, the application of the petitioner, I do not‘find any scope for interference in- the order impugned in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. [TT ’ T. P. Sharg ‘1 L "L Judge37 s “ V \