M. R. Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2435 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

M. R. Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2025

                                                          1




          Digitally signed
                                                                           2025:CGHC:12401
          by PRAKASH
          KUMAR
PRAKASH   Date:
KUMAR     2025.03.12
          16:47:14
          +0530
                                                                                       NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                         Criminal Revision No. 573 of 2016

                    •    M. R. Goyal S/o Shri Mulchand Goyal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
                         Bangla Yard, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Presently
                         Chief Personnel Officer, (I.R.) North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.
                         Now he has been transferred as Chief Personnel Officer (I.R.) Western
                         Railway Bombay,
                                                                                  ... Applicant
                                                        versus
                    •    State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
                         Torwa Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/03/2025

1. Perused the status report received from the Special Judge (Prevention

of Corruption Act), Bilaspur, dated 13.02.2025 which shows that the

Special Sessions Case No.02/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. M.R.

Goyal) has been decided by the said Court on 28.02.2019 and the

accused M.R. Goyal has been acquitted of the charges framed against

him giving benefit of doubt.

2. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that by lapse of time the

main criminal case pending against the applicant has already been

decided by the trial Court, therefore, he does not want to press this

revision as the same has become infructuous.

3. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed as having become

infructuous.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

Prakash