PRADEEP PURANE @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 14/03/2013 whereby the appellant/accused No. 15 is aggrieved by the para 33 of order. Para 33 is reproduced hereunder : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_572_CGLJ1_2014.jpg</IMG>

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that Sessions Trial No. 95/2011 i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Jairam and 18 others was tried under Section 395, 397, 120 -B, 342 IPC that offence were committed by the 18 accused. In the said sessions case, the 15 accused were tried who were available. The remaining 3 accused could not be tried. After the trial the 15 accused, who were tried in the Sessions trial were acquitted, while remaining 3 accused continued to be absconded. Therefore, the learned court below while passing the final order at the conclusion of the trial reserved/restrained to pass any order on the seized maruti vehicle and did not decide it on the ground that the vehicle which was seized could not have been disposed of as few of the accused were still absconding. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for the relevant vehicle initially the custody was ordered for during trial but the same could not be complied by the applicant.

(3.) THESE fact are also not disputed by the State counsel.