1 CGHC010151452013 2026:CGHC:38126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 396 of 2009 Dr. V.A.K. Kosariya, S/o Late L.L. Kosariya, aged about 48 years, Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.), R/o Ward No. 4, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh. Through: Police Station, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 25/08/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20/08/2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.32/2008, by which the appellant who was a witness in connection with Session Trial No.39/2008 under Section 302 of IPC. 2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant was summoned as a prosecution witness in Sessions Trial No. 39/2008. He could not appear on 19/08/2008 because he was engaged in urgent Government duty relating to the disbursement of funds under the ‘Janani Suraksha Yojana’. The Trial Court consequently initiated NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.08.25 18:16:14 +0530 2 proceedings under Section 350 Cr.P.C. by registering M.J.C. No. 32/2008. The appellant submitted his explanation and appeared before the Court on the very next day, i.e. 20/08/2008, when he gave his evidence. Thus, the appellant's non-appearance on the date fixed was due to official duty and was not intentional. 3) The date was fixed for hearing on 19/08/2008. However, on the said date, the appellant could not appear before the learned trial Court due to urgent official duties. Consequently, the learned trial Court, exercising its powers under Section 350 of the Cr.P.C., imposed a fine of Rs.100/- upon the appellant. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had submitted his reply before the learned Sessions Judge, explaining that due to urgent official duties, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on the said date, as he was also In- charge of the Government Hospital. He, therefore, prays for his exoneration. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court, without properly considering the reply submitted by the appellant, proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that it was incumbent upon the appellant to appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed. His non-appearance resulted in delay in the trial, which is contrary to the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied”. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal. 3 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the fact that the duties of a doctor are equally important, particularly in attending to patients, it is necessary to adopt a balanced approach in such matters. Nowadays, video- conferencing facilities are also available to doctors so that Court proceedings can be attended without hampering essential hospital work. 7) From the record, it appears that the appellant had clearly intimated to the learned Trial Court that he was unable to appear due to his official duties and responsibilities as In-charge of the Government Hospital. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the learned trial Court adopted a rather harsh approach in imposing a fine of Rs.100/- upon the appellant and further directing that disciplinary action be taken against him. 8) The learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the nature of the appellant's duties and responsibilities as a doctor, particularly his responsibility towards patients and the functioning of the Government Hospital. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20/08/2008 is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 9) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/08/2008 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Kamde