.\ z^ ^y ^ ^\ PHE—78 3T1^T ^T'f^fR? ^T 3TT^?T Sh^icti \- ^ 'S^Sf ^I^I^AI, ®tl)y'IS,fi|lvll'M'J,< 6^.fl,P, ^^ *II*ICTI th*ll<h W^ 200 & 3n^?iTra?T (yi(31si<t4) ?®nwHfs?fsn^i SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUS1 Cr.M.ff.No.205/2008 Applicant Appellant Non-Appllcant Respondent 1.5.2(M)8 Shri Arun Sao, GA fo None for fhe non-.apF|lii Heard on IA No.Ol, in filtng fhe instant appe^d with a delav of 302 davs. The respondent ha^ under Sections 279 and 3 Magistrate First Class, DL| vide impugned judgment d| •+l<<i<'t<fl-< ^IHrtf'? fe'St <[«]t$l< ^aflwTSii^r ICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA State of Chhattisgarh Thi'ougli Station House Officer Bhilai Bhatd, District Durg (CG) Versus Ratish Raj S/o Lale J.P. Kuiuar Saloiuaii Aged about 26 years, R/o Sector-8, Road-36 Qr.No. 1-C, BhUai Nagar, P.S. Kotwall, Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (CG) r the State/applicant. licant/respondent. pplication for condonation of delay as the sam.e has been preferred been acquitted from. fhe charge i38 of IPC by the leamed Judicial re in crmunal case No. 294/2001. ated 13.3.2007. i—-— :."' ,„>«tla 1 !';...-. 1^..' . %. "'lh.: W? "<l;te@i! 35-HE—78 sn^r •cev R'fi'fc ^TSTT 37T^?T !h+li<^ <«, Si^. ^ 'S^t T^W\v\i\, 8>ial'H<is, f»«niyi< *ll*lcfll a»*ll<h"'"" ' " '" '"""W^ 200 SII^T •q?W ('^3^1) TOIIW ^fta 3fI^?I From. penisal of the i] the prosecution did not cross-examination and the respondent for absence i^npugned judgment it appears that pro|duce fhe prosecution witnesses for th^refore, the Court below acquitted lof evidence. Taking into consider^ trial Court for acqiutting tt( fhat fhe State/appUcant reason for flling the ihstanlt for condonation of delay Consequentl^', the appeal| litnitation. <=hi<it<n<fli TTF^ff ^ 'fe1^ <r<>i<^i< ^affipr sn^l ^tion the reasons assigned by fhe |e respondent and also considering |has not assigned any sufiElcient appeal belatedty; the appllcation in ffling the appeal is rejected. is also disinissed as barred by .sd/-'' Dhirendra'Mishra Judgfr