Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/467/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 467 of 2006
=========================================================
IRSHADHUSSAIN
AHMED JABAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
SAJEDABANU,W/O.IRSHAD
JABAR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
KAUSHAL K SONI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MM TIRMIZI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
PD BHATE, APP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 13/11/2006
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Rule. Mr P.D Bhate, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent
State and Mr Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.
1 & 2 waive service of rule. At the request of the parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Court, 5th
Fast Track Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 679 of 2005 after
condoning the delay in filing the Revision Application.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the parties. The Revision Application No. 307 of
2005 is filed after a period of 196 days. The Apex Court in the case
of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji has held
that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter
being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being
defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that
can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing
the parties.
3.1 As
a result of hearing and perusal of records and looking to the
particular facts and circumstances of the case, as also the aforesaid
decision of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it will be in
the interest of justice to hear the matter on merits. In that view
of the matter, the delay is required to be condoned, however, on
certain conditions.
4. Accordingly,
the order dated 31.01.06
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 679/05 is quashed and set
aside and the
delay caused in filing the Revision Application is condoned on
condition that the applicant shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.
75,000/- within a period of six weeks from today. On such amount
being deposited, the respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to
withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. The remaining amount shall be
invested by way of a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank
initially for a period of two years, and on maturity shall be
renewed by one year at a time without any further orders in this
regard. The said deposit shall be subject to the final outcome of
the Revision Application. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top