2024:CGHC:37556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 864 of 2024 • Rohit Kumar Kunjam S/o Birsingh Kunjam, Aged About 44 Years R/o 72, Bhaismundi (Tulsi), Poamoda, Risewada, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State. : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

24/09/2024

1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 &

401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 14-3-2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District North Bastar, Kanker in Session Case No 2 of 2021 whereby the application preferred by the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for discharge from charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 506, 353, 333 and

307 of IPC has been dismissed on the count that the accused was not present at the place of incident on 28-1-2020 and he was in the Junglewar College, Singarbhhat and to substantiate his submission he has submitted a copy of Rojnamcha Sanha, which is a certified copy.

2. Learned Special Judge, District Bastar Kanker has rejected the same by recording its finding that deleted name in the FIR is there, as such it cannot be said that on the basis of Rojnamcha Sanha he was not present there, therefore, rejected the same. This order is being assailed by the petitioner by filing this criminal revision..

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order is bad in law as the document was the certified copy which is to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner. Thus, he prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 14-3-2024.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicant would submit that whatever the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is his defence which can very well be considered by adducing evidence. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal revision.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below.

6. Considering the submissions whether the Rojnamcha is correct or not , it is a matter of evidence which can very well be examined by recording of evidence. Even otherwise, it can very well be ascertained during trial,. Therefore, in view of the well settled position of law while hearing the proceeding under criminal revision, defence of the accused has not been considered. Considering the well settled position of law, I am not inclined to admit this criminal revision.

7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. It is made clear that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court will not come in any way while deciding the trial on its won merit and the trial Court shall decide the trial on its own merit without being influenced by any of of the observations made by this Court.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

JUDGE Raju