← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRR/937/2016disposed off

Chetan Dhimar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-12-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 937 of 2016 Chetan Dhimar S/o Shri Thakur Ram Dhiwar Aged About 17 Years R/o Village Jarod Umariya, Police Station Mandir Hasoud (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Thakur Ram Dhiwar S/o Bisahu Ram Dhimar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Jarod Umariya, Police Station: Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, & Also Through Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. G.A.

S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/12/2016 Heard.

Today when the case listed for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the meantime, the trial is over and the applicant has already been acquitted.

Earlier the case was listed on 04.10.2016 and time was granted to file reply. On 08.11.2016 again time was granted with direction to place on record the report of Probation Officer. On 28.11.2016 again direction was issued to place on record information. On 14.12.2016, this Court noticed that for want of production of relevant reports, it is causing delay in disposal of revision petition filed by the juvenile where application for grant

-2of bail has been made.

Detailed direction has been issued to the State to ensure timely production of the record before the Court so that such revision petition which are only continuation of proceedings of bail application are decided at the earliest.

The concerned Station House Officer is present in the Court and informs that the diary of the case was already submitted in the office of Advocate General on 15.11.2016. This case was listed before this Court on 14.12.2016.

Learned counsel, who appeared in the Court on that day, was not in possession of the case diary. This is very sorry state of affairs. A copy of this order be sent to the Advocate General to ensure that in future, this situation is avoided when the records are lying in the office of Advocate General and the law officer, who is representing the State in the Court, is not provided with the necessary documents.

The Criminal Revision is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha