I / I I I 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 272/2009 STATE Through: BRIJESH GUPTA Through: CORAM: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pawan Behl, APP for the State versus ..... Respondent Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER 25.03.2010 CRL. M.A. 5203/2009 For the reasons given in the application the delay in filing the revision petition by the State is condoned. This application stands disposed of accordingly. CRL.REV.P. 272/2009 Today learned APP for the State seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to take recourse to any of the provisions under the Code of Procedure or any other law other than the provisions contained in Chapter VIIrA of the Code of Criminal Procedure for attachment/seizure/confiscation of the properties of the respondent/accused which the State feels have been acquired with the money obtained through means of extortion etc. and it may also be clarified that filing of the present petition and its withdrawal would not come in the way of the State in having recourse to other legal remedy I or the purpose for which the trial Court was moved and which request was rejected. Learned senior counsel for the respondent does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. This petition . is dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty prayed for is granted. MARCH 25, 2010/pg P.K. BHAS ,J ) ·k c;::::: __ .:::.:.,::_____ :__:_._- _.::..:.:_ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 272/2009 STATE Through: BRIJESH SINGH Through: CORAM: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pawan Behl, APP for the State versus ..... Respondent Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P .K. Jain, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER 12.04.2010 CRL. M.A. 405112010 The applicant/respondent seeks correction in the order dated 25th March, 2010 whereby the State had withdrawn its revision petition only to t?e extent that the name of the applicant/respondent has been by some mistake mentioned as "Brijesh Gupta" in place of "Brijesh Singh", as is mentioned ·in the petition. It appears that due to some inadvertent mistake the name of the respondent in various proceedings has been shown as Brijesh Gupta while in fact it should have been Brijesh Singh. This petition is accordingly allowed and the title in the proceedings dated gth January, 2010; 1st February, 2010 and 25th March, 2010 shall now be read as under:- "State V s. Brijesh Singh" APRIL 12, 2010/pg