STATE Vs. RAJESH GUPTA ALIAS TITU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of two days in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal.

(2.) For the reasons stated in the application, we condone the delay in filing Crl.L.P.No.129/2009. Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that if the matter can be disposed of on merits today itself, he has no objection if leave to appeal is granted. 2. We accordingly allow Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 and grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2009. Crl.A. No.______/2009 1. The registry is directed to assign number to the instant appeal. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2009, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A/308/34 IPC.

(3.) We note that three persons namely the respondent Rajesh Gupta, Shiv Raj Jindal and Sushil Kumar were charged and on a revision petition preferred to this Court by Sushil Kumar, vide order dated 30.08.2006, charge against him was set aside and accordingly Sushil Kumar was discharged.