Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/283/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 283 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
No
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
No
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No
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 ?
No
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
No
=========================================
T.
KOLI (KALIYA) JYOTSANABEN @ MAITRIBA @ PAYAL W/O VINUBHAI -
Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR DIPEN K
DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP
RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 28/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. RULE.
Shri K.P. Raval, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case
and with the consent of learned advocate appearing for respective
parties, present revision application is taken up for
final hearing today.
2. Present
Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant –
original accused challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2011
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.149/2011, by which the learned Sessions
Court has rejected the said application submitted by the applicant to
condone the delay in preferring the Criminal Appeal challenging the
judgment and order dated 06.07.2010 of conviction passed by the
learned JMFC, Lakhtar in Criminal Case No.32/2010.
3. Having
heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the impugned order passed by the learned
Sessions Court, it appears that learned Sessions Judge has taken a
too technical view while considering the application submitted by the
applicant to condone the delay in preferring the Criminal Appeal
against the order of conviction. The learned Sessions Court ought to
have appreciated that by delay, the applicant was not going to be
benefited and/or there was no malafide intention on the part of
applicant in not preferring Criminal Appeal within the period of
limitation. By not condoning the delay, the valuable right of the
applicant to challenge the order of conviction has been taken away.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and so as to enable the
applicant to submit the case on merits,
the delay caused in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned and
the Appeal is to be considered on merits.
4. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Revision
Application succeeds. Impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.149/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and delay
caused in preferring the Criminal Appeal against the judgment and
order dated 06.07.2010 of conviction passed by the learned JMFC,
Lakhtar in Criminal Case No.32/2010 is condoned. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. Now, the learned Sessions Court to consider
the Appeal preferred by the applicant in accordance with law and on
merits. Direct service is permitted.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top