Full Text
Translation output
g
$~ 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT 'OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 117/2009
STATE OF DELHI
$~ 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT 'OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 117/2009
STATE OF DELHI
VERSUS
SANTIVKUMAR
CORAM:
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, APP. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL o/o
08.10.2013
The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, APP. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL o/o
08.10.2013
The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned
ORDER
dated 01.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge, Delhi, wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under
Section 7/16 ofPrevention ofFood Adulteration Act.
The notice of the leave to appeal was issued to the respondent on
20.07.2009. Thereafter, four years have passed and till today the State has not been able to serve the respondent. Perusal of record shows that number of opportunities have been granted to the State. Despite that no serious efforts have been made to serve the respondent. On the last date of hearing it was ordered that
Ld. APP shall file an affidavit of the concerned officer in respect of how they propose to proceed with the present petition in the absence of service on the respondent. Despite that no affidavit is filed. It appears that petitioner is not serious in pursuing the present leave to appeal. The same stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
OCTOBER 08, 2013//srb
2013:DHC:8661
Judge, Delhi, wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under
Section 7/16 ofPrevention ofFood Adulteration Act.
The notice of the leave to appeal was issued to the respondent on
20.07.2009. Thereafter, four years have passed and till today the State has not been able to serve the respondent. Perusal of record shows that number of opportunities have been granted to the State. Despite that no serious efforts have been made to serve the respondent. On the last date of hearing it was ordered that
Ld. APP shall file an affidavit of the concerned officer in respect of how they propose to proceed with the present petition in the absence of service on the respondent. Despite that no affidavit is filed. It appears that petitioner is not serious in pursuing the present leave to appeal. The same stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
OCTOBER 08, 2013//srb
2013:DHC:8661