State vs Videshi Chauhan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1475 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             ACQA No.25 of 2012

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh,
     (C.G.).


                                                               ---- Appellant
                                     Versus
  •   Videshi Chauhan, S/o Govindram, aged about - 35 years, R/o
      Purana Badpara, P.S. Kotwari Raigarh, District - Raigarh, (C.G.).

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Appellant/State : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent : Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

22/03/2022

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment

and order of acquittal dated 13/10/2009 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Raigarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1413/2008, whereby

the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent/

accused of the charges punishable under Sections 34(1)(A) of the

Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the

trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused only on the ground

for want of prosecution evidence. Learned Counsel further submits

that though on some occasions summons were issued to the

witnesses, 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 also not made any serious effort for securing appearance

of prosecution witnesses before it and acquitted the

Respondent/accused by giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, the

acquittal is not proper on the ground of non-examination of any of

the prosecution witnesses.

3. Supporting the impugned judgment of the trial Court, Learned

Counsel appearing for the Respondent/accused submits that since

sufficient opportunity has already been given 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.

4. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the material available on record of the trial Court minutely.

5. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that the charges

were framed on 21/11/2008, thereafter, the trial Court has fixed the

case for prosecution evidence on ten occasions, out of which only on

three occasions, summons were issued to the witnesses but 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 to secure the presence of the witnesses. Suddenly, on

13/10/2009, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and

passed the judgment of acquittal giving benefit of doubt to the

Respondent/accused.

6. 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. Respondent/accused is directed to remain

present before the trial Court on 12/04/2022. As the matter is

pending since 2008, 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.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the acquittal appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Prakash