Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2589/2011
OMPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner STATE
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
11.08.2011
ORDER
1. Vide the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2011 passed by the ld. S.D.M. Seelam Pur whereby order dated 24.06.2011 was directed to be made absolute.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 24.06.2011 was never served upon the petitioner.
3. I note, vide order dated 24.06.2011, 15 days time was granted to the petitioner to remove the machines. However, the petitioner never complied with this order. The petitioner has denied to receive the same. Assuming that the order dated 24.06.2011 has been received by the petitioner, even then the ld. i' '-- -',~ r ~~ -·~·" ·.-! ~:~: I 2011:DHC:9007 / S.D.M. should have passed the order after the expiry of IS days from 24.06.2011. However, the impugned order was passed on 07.07.2011, i.e., on the 13th day of the said order.
3. In my opinion, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I set aside the same.
4. The ld. S.D.M., Seelam Pur is directed to pass a fresh conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter pass the fresh order as per law.
5. Needless to state that the petitioner has the right to file reply to the same and lead further evidence.
6. The CRL.M.C. 2589/2011 is disposed of in the above terms. Crl. M.A. No.9255/2011 Since the petition is disposed of, this application has become infructuous. Dismissed as being infructuous.
AUGUST 11, 2011 RS ~ SURESH KAIT, J,.~