1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2008. (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs RAMESH SOMAJI THAKRE ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri V.A.Thakare, Advocate for applicant. Shri S. Harode, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2008. 1. Heard. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CRI.APPLICATION NO. 274/2008. 3. This is an application for leave to appeal. The grievance is that the case filed by the Food Inspector is dismissed. The findings are recorded on the point of defect in furnishing sample to Chemical Analyser which is of three days. 2 4. Next point, on which acquittal is ordered, is that the witnesses on purchase of Turmeric Powder are not examined. 5. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on two reported judgments, namely : (i) 2002 CRI.L.J. 568 (Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar); (ii) AIR 1994 SC 1818 (T.V.Usman V. Food Inspector, Tellichery Municipality) 6. In the light of the facts of the present case these judgments have no relevance whatsoever . 7. The learned A.P.P. has tendered, for perusal of this Court, copy of Roznama. 8. The information revealing from the Roznama shows how negligent the prosecution was. 9. It is seen that from 22.10.2002 there is no progress from the side of prosecution. Even applications for adjournment are not filed. There is no application on record for summoning the witnesses. 3 10. When the prosecution was so extremely lethargic it is not proper to blame the Court for having closed the evidence. 11. It is not the grievance that the applications for issuance of summons were made and have been rejected. The case is of 1999 and the dismissal is done out in the year 2006. 12. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witness No.1 for the prosecution was completed on 20.08.2002. In absence of any explanation towards the said lethargy no grounds are made out to grant leave to appeal. 13. Application for leave to appeal as well as appeal are dismissed. JUDGE RR.