NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.5 of 2012
State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
Smt. Dukhani Shah, W/o Late Rajaram Shah, aged about 53 years, R/o
Saraipali Uparpara, Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant/State : Shri Anurag Verma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 10.3.2022
1. This is an admitted appeal. It is heard finally.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.1205 of 2006, whereby the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 34(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused giving benefit of doubt on the ground that the case is pending since 2006 and much opportunity has already been given to the prosecution for examination of their witnesses, but, the fact is that not a single 2 prosecution witness could be examined. Learned Counsel further submits that though on some occasions summons were issued, the Trial Court did not try to find out whether service of those summons on the witnesses were effected or not. The Trial Court has not made any serious effort for securing appearance of prosecution witnesses before it. Therefore, the acquittal is not proper on the ground of non-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses.
4. Supporting the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/accused submits that since sufficient opportunity has already been afforded to the prosecution by the Trial Court for production of their witnesses, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent/accused on failure of examination of prosecution witnesses.
5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record of the Trial Court minutely.
6. From perusal of the record of the Trial Court, it appears that the particulars of the offence was made on 20.2.2007. Thereafter, the Trial Court fixed the case for prosecution evidence on 12 occasions and according to the relevant order-sheets issuance of summons was directed, but, actually, only on 3 occasions, summons were issued to the witnesses. On any of the 3 occasions, the Trial Court did not bother to find out whether service of those summons were effected or not nor did it issue any other process like bailable warrant for appearance of the witnesses. Suddenly, on 13.11.2009, the Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and 3 acquitted the Respondent/accused.
7. Since the Trial Court did not make serious efforts for securing appearance of the witnesses before it, the matter is remitted back to it for affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution for production of witnesses. As the matter is pending since 2006, the Trial Court is also directed to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Record of the Trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment immediately.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the acquittal appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal