Bombay High CourtAPEAL/330/2009others disposed off

The Union Of India v. Rajkumar Sheetalprasad @ Raju Sindhi @ Raju And ORS.

2018-09-04Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre2 pages

1/2 (1)APEAL-330-09.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.330 OF 2009 The Union of India .. Appellant

Versus

Rajkumar Sheetalprasad @ Raju Sindhi @ Raju and ors .. Respondents ...

None for the appellant.

Ms.Beerta H. Bajwai i/b Lalla & Lalla for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.K.V. Saste, APP for the State.

CORAM: SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, J DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2018 P.C:- The present Appeal is instituted by Union of India under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 16th December 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No.96 of 2002. The Appeal is filed somewhere in the year 2012 and to be precise on 2nd November 2012. The Union of India was represented by Mrs.Poornima Kantharia and the matter was heard by the Court on the said date. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on several occasions i.e. 7th December 2012 and subsequently on 14th March 2013. The matter, however, was Tilak

2/2 (1)APEAL-330-09.doc unattended since none appeared on behalf of the Union of India. On 26th November 2013, the counsel appearing for Union of India Ms.Rebecca Gonsalves made a statement before the Court that she would file a report demonstrating that there was sufficient compliance of the earlier orders. The Appeal was thereafter placed for final hearing by order dated 4th February 2014. When the matter was listed on 21st April 2016, the Union of India was again unrepresented. Today, the matter was called out in the first half session. However, none appeared for the appellant and thereafter the matter was posted post lunch and is again called out. None appears for the Union of India. It appears that either no instructions are given to the counsel appearing for the Union of India or that the Union of India is not interested in prosecuting the said matter.

Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed in default.

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) by Manali Prasanna Tilak Date:

2018.09.05 17:56:27 +0530 Manali Prasanna Tilak Tilak