Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7855/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7855 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1321 of 1993
=======================================================
BABUBHAI
SHANKARBHAI TAVIYAD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
MUKUND M DESAI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LR POOJARI APP for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 19/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned A.P.P., Mr.L.R. Poojari waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondent-State.
The
present application has been filed for extension of time to surrender
before the Jail Authority on the grounds stated in the memo of
application.
Heard
learned counsel, Mr.Jayraj Chauhan for Mr.M.M. Desai for the
applicant-appellant.
Learned
counsel, Mr.Chauhan has submitted that though the matter was
adjourned, Mr.Desai could not remain present as he was not well and
was having problem for kidney stone. He has also stated that he looks
after his work and he is assigned some matters but not the present
matter. He has, therefore, requested for extension of time to
surrender pursuant to oral judgment passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1321/1993 dated 21.06.2010. Learned counsel, Mr.Chauhan has also
stated that the applicant-appellant is also desirous to approach the
Hon’ble Apex Court and time may be extended.
Though
the submissions have been made, they are thoroughly misconceived. On
one hand, the complaints are being made about the matters are not
being taken up and on the other hand, the advocates do not remain
present like in the present case. Learned counsel, Mr.Desai was not
present and the Court had repeatedly adjourned the matter and,
thereafter, he was not traceable even after communication or trying
to secure his presence and, hence, the Court was left with no
objection but to proceed further with the matter.
Even
if the learned counsel, Mr.Desai was not present for personal reasons
or for medical ground, he could have deputed some advocate friend
at-least to inform the Court and should have shown courtesy and,
therefore, no indulgence can be granted once the order has been
pronounced and only to seek extension of time, indulgence is sought
for on the ground that the applicant-appellant is desirous to
approach the Apex Court. It is required to be mentioned that though
it is stated by the learned counsel Mr.Chauhan that Mr.Desai was not
well, no medical certificate or any case paper is produced on record.
Further, when the learned counsel, Mr.Chauhan, who is appearing
today, has conveniently stated that he is assigned some of the
matters and when he is working with the some matters for Mr.Desai,
at-least courtesy should have been shown after looking at the board
that this matter is repeatedly adjourned. Therefore, the indulgence
cannot be shown in such matter, particularly, after such an attitude.
Normally, the Court would grant some time to enable the litigant to
approach the Apex Court. However, in the facts of the present case,
particularly, since it is criminal appeal, one has to surrender
first. Therefore, even on that count, the request cannot be
entertained. The present application, therefore, stands rejected.
Rule is discharged.
(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil
Top