Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/306/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 306 of 2010
=========================================================
ALKABEN
HARILAL PANDYA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH K SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Draft
amendment allowed.
1. Petitioner
has challenged operation of the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot by which she is directed to
pay cost of Rs.5,000/- on which condition revision application came
to be allowed.
2. Petitioner
is complainant in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act. In the said proceedings before the Magistrate, petitioner filed
an application Exh.109 on 21.11.2009 and prayed that she has engaged
another advocate, her new advocate is busy before the Sessions Court,
case may therefore be adjourned one more time.
On
the said application, learned Magistrate by his order on 21.11.2009
recording inter-alia that complainant’s evidence in the form of
affidavit was produced on 11.07.2006. On 09.01.2007, her
cross-examination started, thereafter proceedings were adjourned from
time to time. On some occasions she was cross-examined. Complainant
gave an application Exh.82 seeking stay against further
cross-examination upon which matter was adjourned to 17.10.2008. On
17.10.2008 complainant was not present. Matter was, therefore,
adjourned to 17.03.2009. Thereafter on 17.03.2009, once again
complainant was absent, her evidence was closed. That stage was
thereafter reopened and kept for her further cross-examination. Once
again she has filed this application seeking time which was refused.
Against
this order petitioner went to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court
though allowed the application, however, directed her to pay cost of
Rs.5,000/-.
3. Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that cost of Rs.5,000/- is extremely
harsh. The accused was not put to any inconvenience on account of
adjournments. He therefore submitted that the said direction be
quashed.
4. Having
perused the orders under consideration I find that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretionary powers.
Though it is true that cost of Rs.5,000/- seems somewhat severe,
however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find on series
of occasions, complainant herself had delayed further proceedings in
the pending criminal case before the Magistrate. No interference in
writ jurisdiction is called for. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top
