Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4282/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4282 of 2006
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1320 of 2005
=========================================
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANUBHAI
DHULABHAI RATHOD & ORS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
KC SHAH APP for Applicant
RULE SERVED for
Respondents 1 ? 24, 26 ? 29, 31 -
41.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 13/09/2007
ORAL
ORDER
:(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA)
1. The
above referred Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against
the judgment and order delivered by Presiding Officer, Third Fast
Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad on 25th of January, 2005, in
Sessions Case No. 94 of 2003.
2
42 accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 436 and 336 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section
135 of the Bombay Police Act. Trial proceeded against accused Nos.
1 to 16 and 18 to 42 and those accused are opponents herein came
to be acquitted by the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated
25.1.05.
3. On
calling for the Record and Proceedings, it is found that at the time
of framing of the charge, accused No. 17 Sureshbhai Ramanbhai was
not available for trial and learned Advocate for the accused
submitted an application vide Exhibit ? 4 to separate the trial of
said accused No. 17 Sureshbhai from other accused. The said
application came to be granted by learned Trial Judge on 20.11.2004
whereby the learned Trial Judge though directed to separate the
trial of accused No. 17 Sureshbhai but at the same time directed
Kapadvanj Rural Police to file a separate charge-sheet against the
said accused No. 17. However, at this juncture, we do not probe
further as to the legality of the order passed by the Trial Court in
this delay condonation application, and suffice it to say that,
accused No.17 Sureshbhai Ramanbhai was not put to trial.
4. It
is also to be noted that Opponent No.31 Gordhanbhai Manibhai
Patel has expired and necessary note has been taken by this
Court vide order passed on 22.8.2007.
5 In
preferring above Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal
delay has been caused of 40 days and, hence, this Application by the
State for condonation of delay.
5 Learned
APP Mr. K.C. Shah for the State and learned Advocate Mr. H.J.
Trivedi for the present opponents were heard at length.
6 Having
gone through the application and having regard to rival
contentions, though this Application is opposed by the other side,
it clearly appears that the State has made out sufficient grounds
for condonation of delay as it clearly appears that delay has been
caused on account of administrative reasons and for collecting
necessary material and papers. From the grounds averred in paras
4,5 and 6 of the Application by the State, it clearly appears that
no inaction or negligence can be attributed to the State in causing
delay of 40 days in preferring the Appeal. Taking liberal view,
this Application deserves to be allowed.
7 In
view of above, this Application is allowed. Delay caused of 40
days in preferring the Criminal Appeal is condoned. Rule made
absolute. Office is directed to retain the Record and Proceedings in
this Court.
(J.
R. VORA, J.)
(SMT.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
pnnair
Top