Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/226/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 226 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SHREE
RAGHUVIR TRADERS THRO VRAJBHUSHAN HARIDAS SUCHK - Applicant(s)
Versus
CHITRANJAN
PETROLIUM PROPRTER. SANGHVI PRAMODRAI V & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MB PARIKH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
JD AJMERA for Respondent(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 04/07/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr. JD Ajmera appears for respondent No.1 and waives service of
notice of rule. Mr. KC Shah, learned APP appears for and waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2. In the
peculiar facts of the case, all the parties jointly request that the
application may be taken up for final hearing today and may be
decided finally today. Thus, with the consent of the learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in view
of the joint request, present application is taken up for hearing
today.
The
applicant herein has preferred this application against an order
dated 22.2.2008 whereby, the appeal No.8 of 2005 came to be
dismissed for default on account of absence of the appellant.
Against the said order dated 22.2.2008 present revision application
is preferred. By the same order the learned Court has, the counsel
point out, also disposed off companion matter being revision
application No.78 of 2006 and the concerned applicant has preferred
criminal revision application No.330 of 2008 against the order.
It
is, by now, settled position that appeal ought not to be dismissed
for default for non-prosecution. Mr. Parikh has appeared for the
applicant and submitted that the said order is unjust and untenable.
Mr. Parikh has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Parasuram Patel & Anr. V/s. State of
Orissa reported in (1994) 4 SCC 664 wherein,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ?Sit is now well settled
that no criminal appeal can be dismissed on the ground of default in
appearance.??
In
view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned
order dated 22.2.2008 is quashed and set aside. The District Court,
Amreli is directed to restore the appeal No.8 of 2005 to file and to
restore the proceedings and to proceed with the hearing in
accordance with law.
With
the aforesaid observation and direction, present application is
allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs.
Kdc [K.M.Thaker,
J.]
Top