Allowed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt Munni Bai

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2024CRMP/1750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State sought condonation of a 248-day delay and leave to appeal against an acquittal, contending the trial court misread the property seizure memo and japti mal register on quantity of injections seized. The court condoned the delay, granted leave, admitted the acquittal appeal, issued bailable warrant for the respondent and listed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC granted; case registered as acquittal appeal, admitted, respondent to appear on bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/-.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt Munni Bai — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:45766-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2024.11.23 10:24:16 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 1750 of 2024

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra, Patna, District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

Smt Munni Bai W/o Subans Lal Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o. Village Anga Patelpara, Thana Patna, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Advocate

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

22.11.2024

¶19

1. Heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State on I.A.No.1/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the same has been filed with a delay of 248 days.

¶20

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶21

3. Also heard learned Deputy Advocate General on the application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶22

4. It has been argued by learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State that the trial Court misread the property seizure

¶23

2 / 2

¶24

memo (Ex.P-19) and japti mal register (Ex.P-45(C)) and it appears from para-41 of the impugned judgment that two documents goes to show much differences between the quantity, which was seized i.e. injections. In fact, from perusal of two documents, there is no difference and the finding of the trial Court has been wrongly recorded by misreading the said two documents.

¶25

5. We have perused the records of the trial Court.

¶26

6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned State Counsel and also perusing the documents i.e., property seizure memo (Ex.P-19) and japti mal register (Ex.P-45(C) 7, we allow the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC.

¶27

7. Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”.

¶28

8. The CrMP is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

9. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted.

¶30

10. Let a bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.5000/- be issued against the respondent / accused for her appearance before this Court on 20^th January, 2025 through concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶31

11. Record of the trial Court has been received and paper book has already been prepared.

¶32

12. List on 20.01.2025 .

¶33

Sd/- Sd/-

¶34

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha)

¶35

Judge Chief Justice

¶36

Bablu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt Munni Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt Munni Bai

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

Hemant Kumar Mahilange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Bhaskar Vs Indian OiL Corporation Ltd. And Ors.

Shreya Tiwari Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Singh Gond and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh