IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No.341 of 2009 & Special Leave to Appeal Application No.22 of 2009 In Government Appeal No.10 OF 2009 State of Uttarakhand ……… Appellant Versus Daulat Ram ……… Respondent Dated: October 20, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant. None is present for the respondent though service is reported to be sufficient. This is delay condonation application no.341 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, acquitted the respondent of the charge levelled against him. The delay is sufficiently explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. The application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Also heard on leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No.65 of 2006. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial court has acquitted the respondent on the following grounds:- a) That on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution only a case u/s 323 IPC is made out against the respondent while Sections 376/511 of IPC are not made out against the applicant. b) That a compromise has taken place between the complainant and respondent under Section 323 IPC. Having gone through the entire judgment passed by the trial court and hearing learned Brief Holder for the State, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial court in acquitting the respondent as the offence u/s 376/511 IPC is not made out against the applicant and further both the parties had entered into compromise before the court below u/s 323 IPC. The judgment and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, is correct and justified and, therefore, no interference is required. For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Therefore, the leave to appeal is refused. The appeal stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.10.2010 RG 2