Allowed

Rengith R v. Commandant 217 Batallian

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2022CRR/388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a criminal revision to remand a dismissed appeal for fresh consideration. The Court held that despite the rule stating no jurisdiction, substantive provisions of the C.R.P.F. Act grant the Sessions Court authority to entertain appeals against convictions recorded by the C.J.M., who had been invested with Magistrate powers.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision allowed; matter remitted to the Sessions Court to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.

Rengith R Vs Commandant 217… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No.388 of 2021

¶4

Rengith R S/o Raghunathan N., Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Post Pavitresavran, P.S. Puthur, District Kollam, Kerala Present Address Chitalanka, Tahsil Dantewada, P.S. Dantewada, DistrictDantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commandant- 217 Batallian, Central Reserve Police Force Cum C.J.M. Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

D.G.I.P. C.R.P.F. Chennai Range, AVADI, Tamilnadu 600055

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, South BastarDANTEWADA, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Non-applicants

¶11

For Applicant – Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 – Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For State – Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, P.L.

¶12

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

¶13

20-09-2022

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This Criminal Revision is filed against the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No. unregistered, dated 15.03.2021, whereby the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present applicant as not maintainable, against conviction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

¶16

-2-

¶17

Commandant- 217 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, in Criminal Case No.01/2020 dated 23.6.2020, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 10(n) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 days.

¶18

The applicant preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court on 16.12.2020 against the conviction and sentence as aforementioned, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 15.03.2021 held that according to Rule 28 of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955, the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal preferred by the present applicant. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and liberty was granted to the applicant to prefer appeal before the competent Court/officer.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the present applicant has granted liberty to prefer appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. Likewise, the DIGP, Chennai Range, has vide its letter dated 15.10.2020 advised the applicant to approach the Sessions Court for redressal of grievances. Further, Section 16(2) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 lays down that Central Government may invest the Commandant or an assistant commandant with the powers of a Magistrate of any class for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence committed by member of the Force and punishable under this Act, or any offence committed by a member of the Force against the person or property of another member. The Proviso to 16(2) of C.R.P.F. Act says that offence may, if the prescribed authority within the limits of

¶20

whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed, so directs, be inquired into or tried by an ordinary Criminal Court having jurisdiction in the matter.

¶21

Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the provision contained in Cr.P.C., appeal would lie before the Sessions Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded as such, therefore, the appeal preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court was competent and the Court below has committed illegality in holding that the appeal as being not maintainable.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 and learned State counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶24

The applicant was convicted under Section 10(n) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant vide judgment dated 23.06.2020, thereafter, he preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court which has been dismissed on the sole ground that it is not maintainable. The department as well the Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing judgment have granted the liberty to the applicant to approach the Sessions Court and further going through the provisions of Section 16(2) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949, it is crystal clear that appeal would lie before the Sessions Court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶25

-4-

¶26

As a fallout and consequence of the above discussion, the Criminal Revision preferred by the applicant is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Sessions Court for deciding the appeal preferred by the applicant afresh on its own merits.

¶27

Consequently, this Criminal Revision is Disposed off.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

Monika

Rengith R v. Commandant 217 Batallian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rengith R v. Commandant 217 Batallian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimlesh Kumar Sharma Vs The Zila Panchayat, Raipur And Ors.

Omprakash Agrawal Vs Sunderlal

Manish Kumar Verma Vs Smt. Annpurna Verma

Pradeep Kumar Samal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Vs Somnath

Dr. (Smt.) Surjit Behl Vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur