UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. RAJWANT RAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS , identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated petitions, by virtue of this common order, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, has been extracted from C.R.M. No. 27518 of 2010, in C.R.M. No. 425 -MA of 2010, titled as Union Territory of Chandigarh versus Rajwant Rai Sharma, for ready reference in this respect. Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant applications for condonation of delay in filing the petitions under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and emanating from the record are that, having completed all the codal formalities, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the Government Food Inspector and acquitted the respondent -accused of the charges under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by means of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.06.2008, which in substance is as under (paras. 15 to 17):

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -U.T., Chandigarh, has preferred the present petitions to grant special leave to appeal, to challenge the impugned judgments of acquittal, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., alongwith the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of inordinate delay of 528 days' in filing the petition.

(3.) TODAY again, neither the petitioner -U.T., Chandigarh has furnished the correct address for service of the respondent, nor any cogent explanation is forthcoming on record in this regard, particularly when the matter is pending for disposal for the last more than two years at motion stage.