Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) AS , identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated petitions, by virtue of this common order, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, has been extracted from C.R.M. No. 27518 of 2010, in C.R.M. No. 425 -MA of 2010, titled as Union Territory of Chandigarh versus Rajwant Rai Sharma, for ready reference in this respect. Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant applications for condonation of delay in filing the petitions under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and emanating from the record are that, having completed all the codal formalities, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the Government Food Inspector and acquitted the respondent -accused of the charges under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by means of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.06.2008, which in substance is as under (paras. 15 to 17): "The complainant in order to prove its case has examined PW1 Bharat Kanojia, Food Inspector who when appeared in the witness box reiterated the contentions made in the complaint and also proved the documents Ex. PA to Ex. PG. During cross -examination by learned counsel for the accused he admitted that he did not take the training of three months in food inspection from the institution approved for the purpose by Central Government except the FHA -cum -DHS, UT, Chandigarh. In judgment dated 8.3.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 titled State through Food Inspector v. Ravi Kumar Kakkar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh while disposing of the appeal filed by Ravi Kakkar dealt with the question whether the Food Health Authority, Chandigarh was approved authority to impart training as required under Rule 8 of the PFA Rules. In the aforesaid case the Food Inspector who took the sample was authorized to launch prosecution after, being appointed as Food Inspector vide notification issued in the year 1997. It is further observed by learned Appellate Court that in view of notification No. GSR 431(e) dated 29.5.1982 issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health), New Delhi, the Food Health Authority was not approved and authorized to impart training. Also in the aforesaid case like in the present case the Food Inspector who has taken the sample was appointed as Food Inspector vide notification dated 8.10.1997 as is clear from the first paragraph of present complaint Ex. PE. Further, in para No. 29 learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh concluded that the prosecution launched against the appellant (Ravi Kakkar) on behalf of complainant Food Inspector was on the basis of the sample taken by a person who was not authorized and qualified to do so for want of compliance of Section 9 read with Rule 8 of the Act and accordingly the conviction of appellant was set aside. The same analogy applies to this case also since as Sh. Bharat Kanojia, Food Inspector who took sample of adulterated ghee from accused Rajwant Rai Sharma was also appointed as Food Inspector vide gazette notification No. 2828 -UTFI(2) -AH -97/13667 dated 8.10.1997 and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Rajwant Rai Sharma. Accordingly, accused Rajwant Rai Sharma is acquitted of the charge under Section 7(i) PFA Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) PFA Act. Accused alongwith his surety is discharged from the bonds of appearance."
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -U.T., Chandigarh, has preferred the present petitions to grant special leave to appeal, to challenge the impugned judgments of acquittal, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., alongwith the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of inordinate delay of 528 days' in filing the petition. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the respondent could not be served on various occasions for want of his correct address, to be supplied by the petitioner -UT., Chandigarh and the cases were repeatedly adjourned on account of default of the petitioner - U.T., Chandigarh. Ultimately, on the last date of hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Jitendra Chauhan, J.) passed the following order on 27.08.2012: "As per the office report, notice could not be issued as the learned counsel did not furnish the correct address. On furnishing of complete address, fresh notice be issued to the respondent for 3.10.2012."
(3.) TODAY again, neither the petitioner -U.T., Chandigarh has furnished the correct address for service of the respondent, nor any cogent explanation is forthcoming on record in this regard, particularly when the matter is pending for disposal for the last more than two years at motion stage.;