N D M C Vs. NEERAJ PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the warrants issued on 10/8/2007 the accused is present in court along with counsel as noted above.

(2.) AT the outset it may be noted that the record of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is not traceable in the record room (criminal) Tis Hazari as per letter dated 10/8/1992 addressed by Sh. M. L. Mehta, then Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the parties also do not have the record of the trial. The position therefore would be that matter would have to be considered with reference to the impugned order of acquittal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Within the constraints noted herein above i. e. non-availability of the testimony of the witnesses, it is but apparent that matter has to be considered on the fulcrum whether the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge, as reproduced in the order suffers from a patent illegality or an irregularity.