High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 CHH CK 1098

Smt. Satrupa Devdas & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh Anti Corrupation Bureau, Raipur

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur · Decided on 5 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRA No. 576 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 240 words
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 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.