Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9876/2005 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9876 of 2005
In
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 259 of 2005
==============================================================
PARVEENBEN
BHAGSINGH ARORA & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
MAHESHBHAI
BHOGILAL THAKKAR & 8 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR JB PARDIWALA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 8.
-
for Respondent(s) :
9,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date
: 02/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
Mr.Dagli,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned counsel
for the accused wants to advance oral submissions also so that he can
show the justification of the authorities cited by him in reference
to the evidence available on record. It is true that the counsel,
who conducted the Trial on behalf of accused, is aged about 71 years
and is not able to come down to the court because of the fracture
injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident and, therefore, the
Trial Judge may adjoun the matter for a reasonable time and may
decide the cases on or before 28.10.2005 instead of 30.9.2005 so that
he can accommodate the advocates comfortably and the learned Trial
Judge may not have to apply for extension of time. Directions
accordingly.
Of
course, the say of Mr.Pardiwala, learned counsel for the original
complainant is that when the trial proceedings are fresh in the mind
of the learned Judge and the learned Judge himself has conducted all
the cases meticulously and only with a view to comply with the
directions of this court the judgment could not be pronounced though
the written submissions are already available.
However,
in the interest of justice, and the fact that the accused may feel
that justice is being done to him and the matters are not disposed of
in ruthless manner in the court of law, the court has adopted this
lenient view.
With
the above observations, the present application is disposed of.
Notice discharged. It is clarified that if the accused are not able
to arrange for the appearance of his advocate, who has defended him
in the trial, then he shall make necessary alternative arrangement
and conclude the oral arguments part, failing which the Trial Judge
may pronounce the judgment on the strength of the written arguments
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(C.K.BUCH, J.)
pvv
Top