Full Text
Translation output
,.
$-2 o/o HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2212/2009
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate
$-2 o/o HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2212/2009
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
RAM PRATAP VASHIST & ORS.
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
24.01.2014 Crl.M.A.10214/2013 (for condonation of delay)
; .....Respondents There is delay of 21 days' in filing the accompanying application i.e.Crl.M.A.l0213/2013.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay
('~ is condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
Crl.M.A.l0213/2013 Personal difficulty of counsel is the reason put forth for nor1- appearance of learned counsel for petitioner when this matter was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17th April, 2013.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and main petition i.e. Crl.M.C.2212/2009 is restored to its original position.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.MC. 221212009 Page 1 2014:DHC:7501 )
I
24.01.2014 Crl.M.A.10214/2013 (for condonation of delay)
; .....Respondents There is delay of 21 days' in filing the accompanying application i.e.Crl.M.A.l0213/2013.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay
('~ is condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
Crl.M.A.l0213/2013 Personal difficulty of counsel is the reason put forth for nor1- appearance of learned counsel for petitioner when this matter was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17th April, 2013.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and main petition i.e. Crl.M.C.2212/2009 is restored to its original position.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.MC. 221212009 Page 1 2014:DHC:7501 )
I
CRL.M.C. 2212/2009
Respondent-accused has been granted benefit of doubt by trial court in FIR No.lll/1990 for the offences of criminal misappropriation, etc. registered at P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi at the instance ofpetitioner- complainant. Acquittal of respondent-accused was challenged by petitioner-complainant by preferring a revision petition in which finding of acquittal returned by trial court stands affirmed vide impugned order of
28th March, 2009. Learned counsel for petitioner informs that respondent
No.1 is no longer in this world.
Learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that prosecution
·- witnesses ·-in·1this FIR case have come under cloud and now they are accused in a similar type of case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find no palpable error in it.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2014 s CRL.MC. 221212009 SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page2 2014:DHC:7501
Respondent-accused has been granted benefit of doubt by trial court in FIR No.lll/1990 for the offences of criminal misappropriation, etc. registered at P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi at the instance ofpetitioner- complainant. Acquittal of respondent-accused was challenged by petitioner-complainant by preferring a revision petition in which finding of acquittal returned by trial court stands affirmed vide impugned order of
28th March, 2009. Learned counsel for petitioner informs that respondent
No.1 is no longer in this world.
Learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that prosecution
·- witnesses ·-in·1this FIR case have come under cloud and now they are accused in a similar type of case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find no palpable error in it.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2014 s CRL.MC. 221212009 SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page2 2014:DHC:7501
JUDGMENT