Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance vs Unknown on 25 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance vs Unknown on 25 February, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/14134/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14134 of 2009
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2518 of 2009
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT
 

Versus
 

PATEL
BACHUBHAI HARJIVANDAS AND OTHERS
 

=========================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DEVANG VYAS, ADDITIONAL UBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
the Applicant 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Vyas.

The
matters filed by the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Gujarat are notified for non-removing of office objections.

In
some of the matters, there are office objections like ‘pagination is
not done’, ‘the appeal memo is not signed’, etc.

These
objections can be taken care with little vigilance on the part of the
office of the Public Prosecutor.

Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in some of the matters,
the Registry insists for filing certified copy of the judgment even
in the second set when the matter is to be listed before the Division
Bench.

It
is curious why the Registry should insist for filing certified copy
of the judgment in the second set. The Registry should not take such
unreasonable stand in the matter. In the event, the certified copy
if fully legible, a xerox copy of the same be filed in the second
set, with a due care that the same should be legible. This will
avoid delay in listing the matters before the Court.

An
endorsement be obtained from the concerned person (Clerical Staff of
the office of the Public Prosecutor) to the effect that in the event
the Court requires a typed copy of the judgment or any other
document, the same will be supplied.

The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is granted time up to 19.03.2010
to remove office objections.

(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)

(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)

*Shitole

   

Top