Petitioner challenged framing of charges under IPC before Sessions Judge. High Court held facts not prima facie groundless and dismissed revision without interfering with charge framing.
Petition dismissed; order of framing of charge by Additional Sessions Judge affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR.M.P No. 806 of 2015
---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, P.S. Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Arvind Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board
10/09/2015
Page No.2
budget and supervision of the N.G.O. was under the control of Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur. The counsel would submit that the petitioner, who was working in the said NGO as treasurer was appointed on a fixed pay of Rs.8,000/- per month and was working under the control of Sharad Dewangan. He submits that vehicle of the petitioner, Paras Ram Bareth was used for survey of different villages and thereafter, an amount of such charges of use of vehicle was paid to the petitioner. The counsel would further submit that according to the final report, it would reveal that total amount of Rs.3,14,000/- was paid to the petitioner for use of the vehicle, whereas, the bills pertaining to the use of such vehicle of Rs.3,06,000/- was on record to establish the fact that the vehicle was used for survey. He further submits that defalcation amount of Rs.8,000/- was painted out which was the salary liable to be adjusted for amount paid. He further submits that in view of the facts no offence has been committed by the petitioner and he was liable to be discharged.
Page No.3
Page No.4
fell for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 204 “ 2008 AIR SCW 96).
Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Balram
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct in dismissing the revision petition against the framing of charges.
Whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.Referred¶16
AIR 2013 SC 52 · Who else cites this
Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.Referred¶18
2008 (2) SCC 561 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Paras Ram Bareth
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
