Gujarat High Court High Court

Parag vs State on 29 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Parag vs State on 29 March, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/145/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 145 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

PARAG
VINODBHAI VACHHANI & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
ZUBIN F BHARDA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
Mr Kartik Pandya, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/03/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

2. The
challenge in this Revision Application filed under section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”)
is the order dated 19.9.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.94 of 2006
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track
Court, Rajkot by which charge under section 376 came to be added
on the basis of deposition of the victim.

3. Mr
Zubin Bharda, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and
original accused submits that the above deposition is a somersault
and dramatic change of version by the complainant and in fact in
earlier statement she had not disclosed such facts and on the
contrary, it was stated therein that she had gone voluntarily and
had no grievance against the accused.

4. If
the order impugned is perused, the learned Judge exercised power
under section 216 of the Code upon deposition of the victim which
reveals prima facie about the commission of the crime and,
therefore, addition of section 376 of the Code as additional charge
at this stage cannot be said to be contrary to law.

5. No
case is made out to interfere with the impugned order and this
Revision Application is required to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.

[ANANT S DAVE J.]

msp

   

Top