Gujarat High Court High Court

B vs Shriji on 10 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
B vs Shriji on 10 January, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1248/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1248 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1244 of 2009
 

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


 

B
R BRAHMBHATT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SHRIJI
DAIRY PARLOUR,PARTNERSHIP FIRM, & 7 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KI SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 7. 
MR
HL JANI for Respondent(s) :
8, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 10/01/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present application, the applicant has prayed to condone 234
days of delay caused in preferring the appeal.

Heard
Mr.K.I. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L. Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Even
Board shows that Rule is unserved upon respondent Nos.1 to 7.

Sufficient
time was given to the applicant as also opportunities were also
given to the applicant. The applicant has tried to serve the
respondent Nos.1 to 7, but due to unavoidable circumstances, he
could not serve the respondent Nos.1 to 7.

Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State and also perused papers. From the perusal of the
papers it appears that the learned Judge has not committed any error
in passing the order of acquittal. In my opinion, when there is
nothing on record to say that the learned Judge has committed error
in acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 7, cannot be considered
against the respondent Nos.1 to 7. Even I have not found any
substance in the application to condone delay of 234 days caused in
preferring the appeal.

In
view of above, present application deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(Z.

K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top