Janak Lal Gupta v. Santosh Sahu And ANR.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
^ngle Beneh
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT
BILASPUR Cruninal Revision No.6o^ /2013.
APPUCANT:
Janak Lal Gupta, son of Late Shri Triloki Sao, aged about 58 years, occupation Assistant Police Sub Manipur, Kabir Ward, Near ,..--^ffi.
^Ei ..••"i',"".q-<'.L2.""-'
Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, y(8seal86B'is"".....4-6-:''''"'1""""
•tsd .•••••""
Inspector, residence of ffagar P.S. Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
versus Respondent:
1.
Santosh Sahu, son of Ramnath Sahu, aged about 45 years, (Non-Applicant):
occupation Assistant Grade-3, residence ofvillage Laxmipur, P.S.
Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
2.
State of Chhatdsgarh, Through Station House Officer, Ainbikapur, Civil and Revenue District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
L^^^b3A^'>"'clv^ ^"^^^ 5y;.
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECT!QN^97 READWrm SECTION 401 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Being aggrieved by order dated 8.05.13, passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) in
^ (^) ^'
criminal Appeal No. 41/2012, Janak Lal Gupta versus Santosh Sahu and another, by which the learned SecontfAdditional Session Judge, dismissed the appeal of the pedtioner on account that the petitioner is having no locus standi. Aggrieved by this ^"
impugned order Annexure A-l, the applicant prefers this revision on the following amongst other grounds:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR © Criminal Revision No.603 of 2013 APPLICANT:
Janak Lal Gupta
Versus
RESPONDENTS/:
(Non-applicants) 1.
Santosh Sahu 2.
State of Chhattisgarh {Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code}
Present:
Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for non-applicant No.1. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State/non-applicant No.2. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J
ORDER
(20-12-2013) 1.
Heard.
2.
By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment dated 8-5-2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in J Criminal Appeal No.41/2012, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of competency by holding that the applicant herein is not victim within the meaning of Section 2 (wa) of the CrPC, therefore, hewas not competent tofile acquittal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 ofthe CrPC.
3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this revision with liberty to file revision or to take appropriate step against the judgment dated 16-12-2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No. 1850/2009.
4. The revision is dismissed as withdrawn reserving aforesaid liberty. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Soma -Bia-£"^^il;^ s'iMas