Nanda Prasad Gupta vs Jwakim Lakda And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5836 Chatt

                                                                  NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Criminal Revision No.765 of 2008

      Nanda Prasad Gupta, son of Late Rajnath Sao, aged about 45
       years, occupation- Teacher, resident of Jhinki, Police Station-
       Bageecha, District- Jashpurnagar, C.G.

                                                          ---- Applicant

                                   Versus

  1.

Jwakim Lakda, Son of Joseph Lakda, aged 30 years, Occupation-

Agriculture, R/o Village Roopsera, Police Station Bageecha, Distt.-Jashpurnagar, C.G.

2. Pramod Kujur, son of Shri Edward Kujur, aged about 28 years, occupation- Agriculture, resident of Village- Tehsil Chowk, Bageecha, P.S. Bageecha, District- Jashpurnagar, C.G.

3. Virendra Kujur, son of Theodaur Kujur, aged about 36 years, occupation- Agriculture, resident of village- Jurudand, Police station- Bageecha, District- Jashpurnagar, C.G.

4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Statoin- Bageecha, District- Jashpurnagar, C.G.

---- Non-applicants

For Applicant - Mr. Samrath Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.H. Syed, counsel.

S.B.:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

16-09-2022 Heard.

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment passed by the

Sessions Judge, Jashpur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.09/2008

dated 11.09.2008, whereby the non-applicants No.1, 2 and 3 have

been acquitted by the lower appellate Court, whereas the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bageecha, District- Jashpur, C.G., in

Criminal Case No.399/2008, while passing judgment on

06.08.2008 had convicted the non-applicants No.1, 2 and 3 for

offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 06-06 months each and pay fine of Rs.500/- -

500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 15- 15 days.

The applicant is the complainant, who has filed the instant Criminal

Revision against the acquittal of the non-applicants.

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant seeks

permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Revision.

3. As it is a Criminal Revision against acquittal, therefore, permission

is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to withdraw this

Criminal Revision.

4. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

                                             (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Monika                                             Judge