9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt against the official of the investigating agency by superior officials but that would not give an excuse to the Court to let off the accused or let off any other person or refuse to issue process in accordance with law. - 694/2010 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2011 - MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT, J. For Appellant: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Ms.Mala Sharma Mr.Sushil Kaushik , Advs. For Respondent : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-1. 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the YES Digest? SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl.MA. No.16799/2010 (delay) For the reasons explained, delay of 20 days stands condoned. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department the process under Section 82 Cr. P. C. is not being published. There is no justification why the process was not published in ordinary manner. Further from the letters bearing No.C No.VIII (Law) PLM/39/2000/SA/2372 dated 08.04.2010 and No.C No.VIII (Law) PLM/39/2000/ SA/3513 dated 17.05.2010 it appears that even in the process published in the newspapers the accused was not provided statutory period of 30 days for his appearance before the Court. In the facts and circumstances when the complainant has failed to take steps for publication of process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. complaint is dismissed for non prosecution. 5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that ld.ACMM; New Delhi has totally gone wrong in dismissing the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner and see to it that proceedings under Section 82/83 and other provisions of Cr.P.C are complied with by the prosecution . 7. In the instant case, the respondent No.2/accused in the complaint case the allegations against him is that of evasion of custom duties and of smuggling of fire-arm. 8. I am of the view that ld.ACMM; New Delhi should have not dismissed the complaint in haste and in arbitrary manner. If, there was any lapse or misleading on the part of the department/complainant, he should have given one more opportunity, may be with imposing costs, instead of dismissing the complaint in this fashion. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by ld. ACMM; New Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
