Prashant Kumar Mishra J
1. Heard.
2. The matter was posted today for hearing on two interim applications (I.A. No.1/2018 for taking document on record and I.A. No.2/2018 for urgent
hearing), both preferred by the respondent.
3. Shri Rajesh Roshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that against the same impugned judgment, the prosecutrix had earlier
preferred an application for leave to appeal bearing CRMP No. 1047 of 2016, which has been dismissed at the admission state itself, on 20.10.2016,
however, the present appeal appears to have been admitted on 09.08.2017. He would submit that there cannot be two different orders against the
same judgment, therefore, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned State counsel would not dispute the factual position that against the same impugned judgment of acquittal, the leave to appeal preferred by
the prosecutrix stands dismissed by the Court at the admission stage itself.
5. We have no reason to disagree with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that against the same judgment of acquittal, once
an acquittal appeal has been dismissed at the admission stage, the subsequent appeal by the State is bound to fail.
6. Accordingly, we have no other option but to dismiss this appeal on the same reasoning on which the CRMP No. 1047 of 2016 preferred by the
prosecutrix was dismissed.
