Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5327 (CHH)

MANEN SIKDAR v. PRAMOD KUMAR GAUTAM

CRR/354/2020 · 2026-01-13

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:2251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 354 of 2020 1 - Manen Sikdar S/o Late Manohar Sikdar Aged About 63 Years Resident of Naharpara, In Front of Ekta Nagar, Post And Thana Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Pramod Kumar Gautam S/o Keshari Prasad Gautam Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Santoshi Nagar Chowk, Krishna Nagar , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (14.01.2026) 1. This revision petition filed by the Applicant-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2020, passed by the learned Special Jude (Atrocities) & Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 566/2019, arising out of the HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.01.14 16:40:43 +0530 2 impugned judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No. 4090/2017 wherein the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 138 of N.I. Act S.I. for 6 months and compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default of payment of compensation additional S.I. for 3 months. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant died on 30.04.2021, and thereafter, they have tried to contact the legal heirs of the applicant, but could not contact them. 3. In view of the matter, this Revision Petition stands abated as the legal representative of the applicant has not approached to contest the petition. As such, the Revision Petition stands disposed of as having been abated. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu