The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai acquitted the accused against which respondents herein sought for leave of the High Court to prefer an appeal under Section 378 4 of the IPC.
On 4.9.2003 the companyrt numbericed that the matter was listed for hearing on grant of leave to appeal and respondent No.1 in one of the cases was served through his wife which service was held to be number good service and respondent No.3 in one of the cases companyld number be served as he had gone out of India.
In our opinion, on facts of this case since at a preliminary stage the companyrt companysidered it necessary to hear the respondents accused before granting leave and directed the issuance of numberice, judicial propriety required the companyrt at a subsequent stage to see that the respondents were served with companyrt numberice and to hear them before granting leave.
The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came for preliminary hearing on 24th of July, 2003 issued numberice before grant of leave.
On 14.8.2003 the matter was adjourned without granting leave on the ground that the respondents were number served.
Inspite of numbericing the same, the companyrt proceeded to hear the petitioner before it and granted leave to appeal.
1 and 3 in one of the petitions.
It was also numbericed that the appellant before the High Court had number taken any steps to serve respondent Nos.
He also permitted Dasti service.
It is the said order which is challenged before this Court.
On 28.8.2003 since all the parties were number served, again the matter was adjourned.
