1 2025:CGHC:1126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.12 of 2025 Chandra Kant Manik S/o Late Shri R.P. Manik Aged About 61 Years R/o Rajkishor Nagar, Plot No. -16, Phase -1-Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G) ( Correct Father Name Is Mentioned) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of Special Sessions Case (PC Act) No.07/2017. 3. Brief facts of this case are that, the applicant facing trail since 2018 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act-1988, Bilaspur. Several opportunities had been given to the Investigation Officer- Kiran Gupta to establish the case of prosecution because of she is a material witness in the instant case. After completion of the statement of Investigation Officer on 21.11.2023, started cross-examination by the defense counsel and he did not seek for adjournment of cross-examination of Investigation Officer or any other prosecution witnesses. It is clear from perusal of the order-sheet of the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, case was fixed for cross- examination on several times, but the investigation officer failed to appear for the same. On 06.12.2024, the applicant prayed for adjournment of cross- examination of the investigation officer for want of taking original documents on record then the cross- examination of the investigation officer has been closed. On 6.12.2024 and 23.12.2024, case has been fixed for recording the statement of accused, is illegal, it amount to denial of opportunity from cross- examination of the material witness/investigation officer. Hence, as indicated criminal revision is being preferred before the Court, for just decision of the case. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, learned trial court has committed gross-illegality by closing the opportunity of cross- examination from the material witness/Investigation Officer as well as refused to take the original documents for confrontation with photocopies which is a part of charge-sheet. He further contended that on 15.10.2024, original documents submitted by the applicant with an application for taking documents on record for tallying with photocopies which is a part of charge-sheet, hence, the same has been allowed as well as with the permission of the Court documents have been exhibited some of the documents which is in Bungali language has been objected for exhibit, but that documents hasn't been returned to the applicant till yet. He also contended that the original documents as submitted by the applicant on 5.12.2024 same has been refused to take on record, but the documents has not been returned to the applicant, whereas, in the order sheet it has been mentioned that the documents submitted by the applicant have been returned to the applicant and same has not been kept on record, which is itself contrary to the order passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, Therefore, it is prayed that, the Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 5.12.2024 and 6.12.2024 arising out of Special Session Case (PC Act) No.07/2017 and further be pleased to provide opportunity to the applicant to complete cross-examination of the Investigation Officer and further be pleased to allow and direct the 4 learned Special Judge to take the original documents on record, as submitted by the applicant, in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned orders are well merited and have been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned orders. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record, it appears that on 05.12.2024, the original documents were submitted by the petitioner which has been refused to take on record by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur which is required to be taken on record in accordance with law, whereas earlier on 15.10.2024, the original documents submitted by the applicant has been taken on record and the same has been exhibited and therefore, remaining documents filed on 05.12.2024 has not been taken on record which is contrary to law. 8. In view of the above, learned trial Court is directed to take the remaining documents on records and permit to the applicant to exhibit the same. One opportunity is given to the accused/petitioner that he 5 shall appear before the concerned trial Court for cross-examination as the date fixed by the trial Court and no further adjournment shall be given by the trial Court to the petitioner on whatsoever reason. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the instant revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.20 12:53:38 +0530