1 CGHC010007362008 2026:CGHC:43064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 576 of 2008 1 - Smt. Satrupa Devdas W/o Late Ratan Devdas Aged About 53 Years R/o New Purena, Near Church, Raipur, P. O. Ravi Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Divya Rani Devdas D/o Late Ratan Devdas Aged About 25 Years R/o New Purena, Near Church, Raipur, P. O. Ravi Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nikhil Kumar Devdas S/o Late Ratan Devdas Aged About 21 Years R/o New Purena, Near Church, Raipur, P. O. Ravi Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Roshni Devdas D/o Late Ratan Devdas Aged About 19 Years R/o New Purena, Near Church, Raipur, P. O. Ravi Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Anti Corrupation Bureau, Raipur Through Lokayukt, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause Title is taken from the CIS) For Appellants : None. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 05.10.2026 1. None appears for the appellants. Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, is present. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kanker, District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Special Case (Anti-Corruption Act, 1988) No. 14/2006, whereby the accused, namely, Late Ratan Devdas, was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. On 11.01.2018, it was observed that the accused, Ratan Devdas, had expired on 27.02.2017. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.03.2018, his legal heirs were substituted in the cause title of the present appeal. Subsequently, on 17.08.2018 and 27.08.2018, the respective counsel appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased accused, Ratan Devdas. However, thereafter, when the case was called for hearing on 26.09.2022, 13.04.2023 and 21.07.2026, none appeared, nor was any representation made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased accused to prosecute the present appeal in accordance with law. 4. Today also, when the case is called, none appears, nor is any representation made on behalf of the appellants. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no option but to dismiss the present appeal for want of prosecution. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Rajshekhar