GODAWARI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/applicants, who are facing trial for the commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 1086/2003, have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, being aggrieved by the order dated 22-5-2004 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 130/2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision of the applicants filed by them against the order dated 28-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application of the accused/applicants filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.PC for releasing them on bail during trial in the above criminal case on the ground that the trial of the above criminal case has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that on the complaint of one Bhagwantin Bai Sahu the Police Station, Gol Bazar, Raipur registered a Criminal Case No. 115/2003 against the accused/applicants for the commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC on the ground that one agricultural land admeasuring 51 decimal of Patwari Halka No. 92, Khasra Nos. 171, 172, 173/04 was in the joint name of Dheluram, Kheduram, Rati Rajwanti, Jamuna and Hem Kumar. The said Dheluram after entering into an agreement to sell the said land, on 4-6-2002 executed a registered sale deed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Raipur and in the said sale deed in place of original owners Hemant Kumar and Jamuna Bai, the photographs of Shiv Kumar and Godawari Bai, accused/applicant No. 1, were affixed showing them as Hemant kumar and Jamuna Bai. They also affixed their signatures, accused/applicant No. 2 Vishnu Sen identified them as Hemant Kumar and Jamuna Bai. After investigation the police filed charge-sheet against all the accused/applicants. On 10-11-2003, charges were framed against the accused/applicants and the matter was fixed for evidence on 3rd December, 2003 for the first time. Thereafter, a compromise petition under Section 320(2) of the Cr.PC was filed. The same was rejected by the Trial Court and thereafter, an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.PC was also filed which was rejected by the Trial Court. Then again an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.PC was filed. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 28-4-2004 rejected the application on the ground that 3rd December, 2003 was fixed for taking evidence and on that day a compromise petition was filed which was decided on 11-2-2004 and thereafter, the matter was fixed for the evidence but the witnesses did not turn on the dates fixed for evidence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the applicants under Section 437(6) of the Cr.PC on the ground that the accused persons are facing the charge under Section 467 among other charges which is punishable with imprisonment for life, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the crime, the application was rejected. Against this order the accused/applicants preferred the revision, the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision on the ground that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application showing special reasons.

(3.) I have heard Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused/applicants and Shri Utkarsh Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.