SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 06.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Revision No.81/2006 whereby the learned revisional court, set aside the order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.100/1995 and quashed the charges framed against the accused. The revision petition is time barred by 253 days and is pending before this Court for the last five years for effecting service upon the respondents. The State has been unsuccessful in having the notices of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act served upon the respondents despite repeated opportunities.
(2.) have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.
(3.) Firstly, this Court is of the opinion that the State Government has given no cogent reasons for the huge and undue delay of 253 days occasioned in filing the instant revision petition. The reasons which have been set out in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are far fetched, flimsy and totally unconvincing. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor on the merits of the case. The learned revisional court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, by order dated 06.02.2010, set aside the order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned trial court framing charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 27-A and 27-D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.;