1 2025:CGHC:58476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 582 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Suritram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gaitra Out Post Gidpuri Police Station Palari District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, (C.G.) 2 - Pintu Sahu S/o Ashok Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gaitra Out Post Gidpuri Police Station Palari District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State challenging the judgment dated 28th February, 2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1641/2016 whereby respondent No. 1 – Ashok Kumar Sahu has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) and 2 respondent No. 2 – Pintu Sahu has been acquitted of the offence under Section 5/180 of the MV Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.8.2016 at about 4 PM complainant – Ashok Golchha was going along with her aunt (pkph) – Pramila Agrawal in Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 LC 0157. The complainant was driving the said motorcycle and his aunt was sitting on it as pillion rider. When they reached to Sundarvan approach road, Nayapara, respondent No. 1- Ashok Kumar Sahu while driving his Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. CG 22 AC 4711 (for brevity, “offending vehicle”), owned by respondent No. 2- Pintu Sahu, rashly & negligently, dashed the motorcycle being driven by complainant, as a result thereof, complainant and his aunt fell down and sustained grievous injuries. FIR was lodged by complainant against respondent No. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle. Medical examination of the complainant and his aunt Pramila Agarwal was got done at Community Health Centre, Palari. Spot map was prepared by the Police. X-ray report of victim Pramila Agrawal was obtained from NKD Hospital & Maternity Centre, Raipur. Motorcycle driven by complainant and its document were seized from complainant Ashok Golchha. Offending vehicle Auto Rickshaw and its documents were seized from respondent No. 1/ accused- Ashok Kumar Sahu. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Respondents/accused persons were arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC and Section 3/181 & 5/180 of the MV Act, as being owner of offending vehicle, respondent No. 2 – Pintu Sahu gave the auto rickshaw to respondent No. 1 without valid driving licence, therefore, owner of auto 3 rickshaw i.e. respondent No. 2/accused has also been implicated in the instant case. 4. On 15.05.2017, particulars of offences under Section 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC and 3/181 of the MV Act were read and explained to respondent No. 1/accused - Ashok Kumar Sahu, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. Subsequently, on 28.02.2019, particulars of the offence under Section 5/180 of the MV Act was read and explained to respondent No. 2/accused, who was owner of the offending vehicle Auto Rickshaw, who also abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, but despite granting various opportunities, prosecution failed to examine its witnesses, hence, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class closed the opportunity of prosecution to adduce evidence vide order dated 28.02.2019 and ultimately passed the impugned judgment of acquittal without recording evidence of any prosecution witnesszs before the court. 6. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, appellant / State has filed instant appeal questioning the same. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that after framing of charges, about 10 opportunities were given to the prosecution to examine its witnesses, that too in the said occasion, summons/bailable warrants were issued to the witnesses only twice, that too only to witness no. 1 and 2. Many times no summons / warrant was issued to the witness, despite issuance of bailable warrant to prosecution witnesses No. 1 & 2, they did not present before the Court, therefore, instead of issuing warrant of arrest, learned trial Court closed 4 the opportunity of prosecution to adduce evidence and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, which is nothing but mockery of trial, hence he prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the case may be remanded back to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar with a direction to pass fresh judgment after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant / State. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, alongwith record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. Perusal of record of trial Court show that charge-sheet was filed against both the respondents i.e. Ashok Kumar Sahu (driver of offending vehicle) and Pintu Sahu (owner of the offending vehicle) before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, but Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar framed charge on 15.5.2017 against respondent No. 1 – Ashok Kumar Sahu (driver of the offending vehicle) only, thereafter, the case was transferred to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, who was on maternity leave, therefore, the case was presented before concerned Magistrate, who was looking after the work of the above Magistrate. Subsequently, regular hearing was commenced by concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class since 20.03.2018 and the case was fixed for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses on 20.04.2018, 11.06.2018, 24.07.2018, 06.09.2018, 23.10.2018, 10.12.2018, 04.01.2019, 26.02.2019 & 28.02.2019. In aforesaid period, summons / bailable warrant was 5 issued only to the witnesses No. 1 & 2, that too, only three times. Despite services of summons, they did not enter their appearance, hence, bailable warrant was issued against them at once, even then they did not appear before the trial Magistrate, but without issuing warrant of arrest against them and without calling any other witness by issuing summons, bailable warrant, etc., learned Judicial Magistrate First Class closed opportunity of prosecution to adduce evidence and ultimately passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents/accused. 11. Perusal of order sheet shows that on various dates of hearing, order was passed for issuance of summon, but no summon was issued by the Court Moharir. It seems that concerned Presiding Officer without taking care of aforesaid facts only by counting opportunity given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses for recording their evidence and finding it more than sufficient, closed opportunity of prosecution to produce his witnesses. 12. When a Magistrate passes an order for issuing summons or bailable warrant or arrest warrant against a person or witness, it is the duty of the concerned Court Mohrir to comply with the said order. It is also duty of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) representing the State to look after the work of Court Moharir, as to whether he is issuing bailable warrant / summon or not. But, it seems that neither the concerned ADPO nor the ‘Presiding Officer’ took note of the above fact and only counting the opportunities given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses for recording their evidence, closed its opportunity to adduce evidence, which is highly condemnable, not only in part of Presiding Officer, rather concerned ADPO also. 6 13. In the present instance, summons / bailable warrant was issued only thrice, that too, to only two prosecution witnesses and despite service of bailable warrant, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class did not extend any endeavour to compel appearance of prosecution witnesses by issuing warrant of arrest to the witnesses, to whom bailable warrant was served. 14. It is also surprising to see that case was listed for hearing on 28.02.2019. On that date, particulars of offence was read over and explained to respondent No. 2 – Pintu Sahu (owner of the offending vehicle). Again case was taken up for hearing on same date and opportunity of prosecution to adduce evidence was closed. Thereafter, again case was taken up for hearing on same day, but the date has been mentioned as 15.02.2019 and thereafter judgment was pronounced on the same day. 15. Perusal of order-sheets show that Presiding Officer has not dealt with the matter with due care and in the manner befitting a responsible Presiding Officer. Rather, it has dealt with the case mechanically, which cannot be termed as an effective judicial hearing, which ought to have been conducted by the presiding officer. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar with a direction to consider and decide the case afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the prosecution and defence also to adduce their evidence. At the same time, concerned ADPO representing State is also directed to look into the affair of 7 concerned Court Moharir as to whether he is issuing summons/warrants in compliance with the Court’s order or not. 17. After compliance of aforesaid order, concerned Presiding Judge is directed to pass judgment afresh on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties on record expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 18. The acquittal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 19. Record of the Courts below be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.08 11:57:17 +0530