RAJIV BHOSLE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition against the impugned order passed by learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) dtd. 5/10/2019, in Criminal Revision No. 611/2019 affirming the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, passed in Criminal Case No. 2110/2018 dtd. 19/9/2019 rejecting an application under Sec. 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, FIR No. 42/2018 is registered against the petitioners under Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and petitioners are in custody since 8/2/2018. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the petitioners on 27/2/2019 and case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 13/3/2019. On 17/9/2019 the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 437(6) Cr.P C. which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 19/9/2019, against this order petitioners filed revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur order dtd. 5/10/2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 611/2019. Hence, this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the orders of the Court below are illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The complaint clearly indicate that matter was purely of civil nature and do not attract inference of Sec. 420 or any other offences under IPC. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge could not justify as to how and in what manner the delay in the trial can be attributed to the petitioner. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are improbable and in no way connect the petitioner for the delay in the trial. He next submits that the learned Judge failed to observe that presumption of innocence is the privilege of every accused. He also submits that both the Courts below have committed legal error in not giving the benefit of Sec. 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the petitioner as charge under Sec. 420 of IPC was framed against the petitioner on 27/2/2019 and the date was fixed on 13/3/2019 for recording of the prosecution evidence and the sixty days' period has already expired on 17/9/2019. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the matters of Suneshwar Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRMP No. 1447/2016 on 10/3/2017, Manohar Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRMP No. 937/2018 on 19/11/2018 and Ghasiram Yadu and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2019 LawSuit(Chh) 178.