1 2025:CGHC:5152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved On: 06.01.2025 Judgment Pronounced On: 29.01.2025 CRMP No. 3508 of 2024 1 - Abdul Rafique Khan S/o Late Abdul Rashid Khan Aged About 53 Years Additional Tahsildar Katghora, Police Station Katghora, Distt. Korba (Cg) R/o Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur, House No. 1/125, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau Raipur, Unit At Bilaspur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma C A V Order 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 16.07.2024 allowing the application for condonation of delay without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in CRMP No. 2575 of 2019 by this Hon’ble Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Pramod Kumar 2 Agrawal made a written complaint in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Bilaspur on 01.08.2005, thereby, complaining that he had purchased 52 decimal land from one Chaindas on 08.10.2004 and after registry of the land he submitted an application for mutation of the land in the office of Additional Tahsildar, Katghora on 09.10.2004, though after lapse of 8-9 months the said mutation was not done, whereas, the respondent(present petitioner) demanded Rs. 5000/- from him for the said mutation work, on which he expressed his inability to give the said amount, the accused did not agree and took Rs. 3000/- and thereafter, on 01.08.2005 he again demanded Rs. 1000/- from him. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, initially an offence was registered in zero for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after completing the due legal procedure a trap team was constituted, which reached in the office of the Additional Tahsildar, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) where the respondent (present petitioner) was caught red handed while taking bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant. Upon finding the allegation to be proved an offence vide Crime No. 26/2005 for offence under Section 7/13(i)(d) and Section 13(ii) of PC Act, 1988 has been registered against the present petitioner. The matter has been investigated strictly in accordance with Law and after completing the investigation the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences has been filed against the present petitioner before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge acquitted the 3 accused (present petitioner) vide judgment dated 31.10.2018. the State filed an appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. along with an application for condonation of delay on 24.10.2019. This Court has condoned the delay of 281 days without hearing the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has passed the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 condoning the delay of 280 days without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and prays to recall the order dated 16.07.2024 in the interest of justice. He relied upon Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. [SLP (Cr.) No. 1132-1155 of 2022]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.07.2022 in Daxaben supra held in para 22- “22. The High Court rightly found, in effect, that it had the inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order. The High Court, however, fell in error in not recalling the order dated 20th October, 2020. The High Court did not address to itself, the question of whether it had jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint under Section 306 of IPC, which is a grave non-compoundable offence, entailing imprisonment of 10 years, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of this Court passed on 16.07.2024. This Court has condoned the delay of 281 days filed by the respondent in Cr.M.P. 4 No. 2575 of 2019. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.” 5. This Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 passed in CRMP No. 2575 of 2019 has only condoned the delay in filing the Acquittal Appeal and adopted a liberal approach in considering the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and no prejudice has been caused against the petitioner. This Court has not passed any substantial order against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not prejudicially affected by the order of this Court. 6. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima