1 CGHC010083512020 2026:CGHC:34162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 426 of 2020 J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Through The Sr. Vice President (Works), Village Malpurikhurd, Khasadih, Post - Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Nandini, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Dhannulal Sahu S/o Manrakhan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Malpuri, Police Station - Nandini, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Anupa Bai W/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Malpuri, Police Station - Nandini, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : None. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 15:35:03 +0530 2 First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in RCC No. 717/2013, whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and owns a cement plant at the address mentioned in the cause title. On 25.03.2013 at about 3:00 p.m., a group of nearly 50–60 persons, armed with sticks and stones, unlawfully entered the company's premises. They abused and threatened the security guard, pelted stones at him, compelling him to flee, and thereafter intimidated the company with dire consequences while removing certain company articles on four motorcycles. Upon receiving information about the incident, Mr. S.K. Lenka, Deputy Manager (Security), lodged a written complaint dated 26.03.2013 before the concerned police station, specifically naming several assailants and seeking police protection. Despite the detailed complaint identifying the assailants, the police registered an FIR only on 05.04.2013 against six persons under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against only three accused persons under the said provisions. The prosecution cited 14 witnesses in support of its case. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, the trial commenced before the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges. Though the evidence of S.K. Lenka (PW-1) was recorded and discussed, the remaining prosecution witnesses were summarily treated as "not traceable (Adam Pata)" without adequate efforts to secure their attendance. The order sheets reveal that after framing charges under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC on 14.11.2019, the Court 3 merely issued bailable warrants on 16.12.2019, 13.01.2020, and 17.01.2020. No non-bailable warrants were issued before declaring the witnesses "not traceable" on 27.01.2020. Surprisingly, on 27.01.2020, the learned trial Court observed that the material witnesses had either already been examined or were "not traceable" and closed the prosecution evidence on the premise that examination of the remaining witnesses would not affect the merits of the case. The matter was then fixed for recording the statements of the accused on 05.02.2020, which was adjourned to 07.02.2020. On the said date, the statements of the accused were recorded, final arguments were heard, and the accused were acquitted by the impugned judgment. The aforesaid order sheets clearly demonstrate that the learned trial Court declared the prosecution witnesses "not traceable" without exhausting the procedure prescribed under law, including issuance of non-bailable warrants or affording the prosecution an opportunity to furnish their correct addresses. Such an approach is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing criminal trials, thereby warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned trial Court conducted the proceedings in undue haste and in violation of the mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Investigating Officer, a material witness, was neither examined nor was the prosecution asked whether it intended to examine him. Further, on the very date the statements of the accused were recorded, the final arguments were also heard, without granting the prosecution a reasonable opportunity, thereby causing serious prejudice to the prosecution case. The applicant, being the victim of the offence and owner of the property where the incident occurred, has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the offenders are brought to justice through a fair and complete trial. Failure to conduct the 4 trial in accordance with law not only defeats the administration of justice but also encourages anti-social elements to act with impunity, adversely affecting the applicant's business operations and working environment. Subsequent to the present incident, the same accused persons were allegedly involved in another serious incident in which they set ablaze the applicant company's infrastructure, causing substantial financial loss and resulting in registration of several FIRs for offences, inter alia, under Sections 307, 436, and 437 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This highlights the gravity of the conduct of the accused and underscores the necessity of a fair and proper trial. The applicant respectfully submits that under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Hon'ble Court possesses revisional jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the proceedings conducted by the learned trial Court. Since the applicant was not a party to the trial and has no statutory right of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the present revision has been preferred seeking interference by this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the learned trial Court for recording the evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses and for conducting the trial afresh in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2020 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned trial Court failed to conduct the trial in a fair and lawful manner, thereby causing serious prejudice to the prosecution. The impugned judgment, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court for recording the complete prosecution evidence and deciding the case afresh in accordance with law. The learned trial Court erred in treating the 5 prosecution witnesses as "not traceable (Adam Pata)" without there being any request from the prosecution to give up such witnesses. Their examination could not have been dispensed with in the manner adopted by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court failed to afford the prosecution an opportunity to furnish the correct addresses of the prosecution witnesses before declaring them "not traceable", thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair trial. The order sheets clearly reveal that the learned trial Court merely issued summons/bailable warrants at short intervals and, upon their non-execution, declared the witnesses "not traceable" without exhausting the statutory procedure. No non-bailable warrants or other coercive processes were issued to secure their attendance. The learned trial Court further committed a grave procedural irregularity by closing the prosecution evidence without examining the Investigating Officer, who was a material witness. In the absence of his evidence, several material and procedural aspects of the prosecution case remained unproved. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid procedural irregularities resulted in a miscarriage of justice and defeated the very object of a fair criminal trial, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. While acquitting the accused, the learned trial Court drew an unwarranted presumption that a group of 60–65 assailants could not have created any disturbance in the presence of about 100 security personnel. Such finding is based on conjectures and surmises rather than a proper appreciation of evidence, particularly when several material prosecution witnesses were never examined. The applicant, being the victim of the offence, has no statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned judgment. In the exceptional facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant has been constrained to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under 6 Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking appropriate directions for a fair and complete trial. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/State opposes the revision and submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed after due appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded the order of acquittal after assigning cogent and plausible reasons. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse or contrary to law. Accordingly, this Court does not find any compelling or substantial reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7 7. Accordingly, this revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti