R K SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B. S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State-respondent no. 1. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 2. Notice was issued to respondent no. 2 on the delay condonation application. The Office has reported that there is sufficient service upon the respondent no. 2.

(2.) I have gone through the delay condonation application as well as the affidavit annexed herewith. I am of the view that the appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the Special Leave to Appeal Application.

(3.) THEREFORE, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Leave to Appeal Application is condoned. Post this matter on 26th March, 2008 for hearing on the Special Leave to Appeal Application.