Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4949/2005 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4949 of 2005
==============================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
ARVINDKUMAR
KALIDAS PRAPAPATI & 2 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
Mr.L.R.Pujari, A.P.P.
for Applicant(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 05/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE)
This
is an application for condonation of delay of 112 days caused in
filing Criminal Appeal no.1032 of 2004.
Learned
A.P.P. Shri L.A. Pujari has appeared for the applicant-State whereas
learned Advocate Shri V.D. Parghi has appeared for the opponents. It
has been submitted by learned A.P.P. that the delay had been caused
due to administrative reasons. It has been submitted that for the
purpose of taking decision by the State as to whether an appeal
should be filed in a Criminal Case, first of all, a certified copy
of the judgment and relevant record is called for from the concerned
Public Prosecutor. As per the said practice, the Public Prosecutor,
Panchmahals, has forwarded a certified copy of the judgment and
copies of the relevant record to the Legal Department.
Upon
receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and record pertaining to
the case, which was bulky, the concerned officers had to go through
the same for arriving at a decision whether an appeal should be
filed. In the said process some time had been consumed, and
therefore, the delay had been caused. According to the learned A.P.P
there was no lethargy or carelessness
on the part of the officers of the State Government, and therefore,
in the interest of justice, the said delay be condoned.
On
the other hand, learned Advocate Shri Parghi appearing for the
opponents has vehemently submitted that the delay should not be
condoned because the State authorities were much aware about the
legal provisions, and they ought to have acted promptly for taking
decision whether an appeal should be filed. According to him, the
State authorities were slow in taking the decision, and therefore,
the delay should not be condoned.
We
have heard the learned Advocates and have gone through the contents
of the application. Upon perusal of the details given with regard
to the action taken by different officers at different times, in our
opinion, a case has been made out for condoning the delay. We,
therefore, condone the delay. Application is accordingly allowed.
Rule is made absolute.
(Anil
R.Dave,J.)
(M.D.Shah,J.)
ard-lee.
Top