SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUDESH KUMAR RAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRR 31/2021



Advocates:
['MALAY SHRIVASTAVA', '', 'SOURABH SAHU', 'GHANSHYAM SAHU', 'HARSH RAI', 'A G']

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order Reserved on : 15.02.2021

Order Passed on : 16/06/2021

Cr.R. No. 31 of 2021

1. Sudesh Kumar Rai, S/o. Late Jugal Kishore Rai, aged about 52 years,

R/o. Ward No. 13, Balram Das Ward, Old Civil Line, Infront of Shukla

Aata Chaki, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Narayan Yadav, S/o. Late Jeevrakhan Yadav, aged about 52 years, R/o.

Behind Om Cycle, Ward No. 19, Sahdev Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station

Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Non-applicant

For Applicants

: Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondent

: Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

C A V ORDER

16

/06/2021

1. This criminal revision has been brought challenging the legality,

propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.03.2020, passed in

Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2019, by the learned trial Court rejecting the

application of the applicants filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

praying for discharge.

2. These applicants and others were charge-sheeted for commission of

offence under Section 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 413, 120 (B), 201, 217,

-2-

34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 (1), 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 66 (c) and 66 (d) of the Information

Technology Act.

3. The applicants filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. stating

that they have been falsely implicated in the case as there is no material

present in the charge-sheet to show that the applicants have committed

any offence as alleged. Although the applicants were members of super

checking team, but there is no evidence that super checking team went

through any checking or inspecting the documents, on which the team

constituted for issuance of new ration card had worked. Hence, these

applicants have not played any role in the said commission of offences

and none of the offence registered against them is made out. The

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has passed the

impugned order by which, the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

was partly allowed and the applicants were discharged for offence under

Section 413 of Cr.P.C., however, the case has been remanded to the

Court of C.J.M. for trial of the applicants and others for the remaining

offences, which are triable by J.M.F.C.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that initially the

FIR was lodged against one Rupesh Joshi and Prahlad Thakur for

commission of offence under Section 3 (1), 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955. On the basis of the report submitted by the

Inspector Food Civil Supplies Department, Rajnandgaon. There had

been no allegation in that report of Food Inspector, against these

applicants. These applicants were members of super checking team,

which was constituted by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation,

Rajnandgaon vide (Annexure A-4) according to which, it was the duty of

the applicants to verify the applications, declaration forms. Subsequent

to the verification made by the nodal officer and before that being

entered on-line. Other government officers and employees were

entrusted with the duties to scrutinize and verifying the application and

declaration forms of the persons who had applied for issuance of ration

card. Therefore, these applicants were never involved in verifying and

scrutinizing the applications and declaration forms of the applicants for

ration cards at the first instance. The whole investigation shows that

there is no case against these applicants. Relying on the judgment of

Supreme Court in case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State

of Gujrat & Another, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547, it is submitted

that the Supreme Court has held that Court is not expected to work as

post office, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top