Disposed

Raja Ram Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024CRMP/1678/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Cr.M.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to interfere with an appellate order rejecting evidence applications. The Court held merits of evidence and sanction issues are best examined by the Appellate Court where appeal is pending, to avoid prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition disposed of; Appellate Court directed to decide the appeal within 4 months.

Raja Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:43693

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 1678 of 2018

¶6

1 - Raja Ram Vishwakarma S/o Shri Guru Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 53 Years R/o- Village- Parri, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan ,naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Station House Officer Police Station- Bishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

11.11.2024

¶16

The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned 03^rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2017 by which application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 read with Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for recording the evidence of Investigating Officer and also for permission to lead additional evidence has been rejected.

¶17

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that accused was

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

charged for commission of offence under Section 354 (eight times) and 506 of I.P.C. alleging that in the month of August 2010 and prior to it, when he was posted as Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Karanji, Surajpur used criminal force on 08 student victims with intention to outrage their modesty and also threatened them to cause harm. The trial Court vide its order dated 13.09.2017 has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC R.I. for 2 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/- and for Section 506 IPC 1 month R.I. with fine amount of Rs. 300/- in default stipulation one week additional R.I.

¶20

Being aggrieved with order of conviction has preferred an appeal on 26.09.2017 and the appeal was admitted and sentence was suspended. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P/13) mainly contending that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class should have not taken cognizance of offence as no sanction to prosecute the appellant has been obtained though he was working as Lecturer and discharging his official duties. It has also been contended that the Investigating Officer has not been examined but appellant intends to examine him to substantiate certain relevant facts, particularly regarding sanction which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred present Cr.M.P.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during trial of the witnesses all the students have not supported the case of the prosecution and Investigating Officer was also not examined still the petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 13.09.2017. He

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

would further submit that learned trial Court has ignored vital right of the accused to defend his case properly. Since all the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution then on what strength FIR has been registered and the offence alleged to have been committed. He would further submit that to wipe up the entire case of the prosecution he requires to examine the Investigating Officer as such, the learned trial Court should have allowed the application. Similarly with regard to Section 197 of Cr.P.C. it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a public servant, therefore, permission is very much required, as such entire conviction is bad-inlaw and would pray for allowing the instant Cr.M.P.

¶24

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that since the petitioner was involved in the offence under Sections 354 and 506 which is not a public duty therefore, he is not required to seek sanction from the Government as it is a heinous offence against women, therefore, no permission is required. He would further submit that so far as rejection of the prayer for permission under Section 391, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse which warrants interference. So far as non examination of Investigating Officer, it is for the prosecution to move an application before the learned trial Court or learned Appellate Court which the prosecution has not taken steps then the petitioner has no locus standi and would pray for dismissal of the Cr.M.P.

¶25

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

¶26

From record it is quite vivid that the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses and whether they have supported the case of prosecution or not cannot be evaluated by this Court while hearing the Cr.M.P. as it

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the petitioner. Similarly, if the prosecution has failed to examine Investigating Officer what will be its effect, can be very well ascertained by the learned Appellate Court where appeal is already pending. Therefore, at this juncture any observation or direction may affect right of either of the parties, therefore, I am of the view that this Court should not exercise its power to pass any direction as in the appeal the accused must have taken this ground also. Therefore, it will not be justifiable for this Court to interfere at this juncture and learned Appellate Court is free to examine the issue as to whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal or not and whether the case of the prosecution has been proved or not, it is for learned Appellate Court to examine the same.

¶29

With this observation and direction, the instant Cr.M.P. is disposed of.

¶30

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the contentions made by the parties. Learned Appellate Court will decide the case expeditiously on its own merit based upon the material collected before it.

¶31

Copy of the order be forwarded to learned Appellate Court for compliance. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

The interim order passed by this Court on 17.08.2018 is vacated.

¶33

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Bhumika

Raja Ram Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Raghuwar Sai Vs Shri Alok Shukla

Ibrahim Khan Vs Shri Avinash Champavat

Ku. Seema Rathore Vs Abinash Mishra

Deenanath Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Randeep Narang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Namdev Vs Shahban Khan and Others