Gujarat High Court High Court

Hirasing vs The on 8 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Hirasing vs The on 8 February, 2011
Author: Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/7090/2006	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7090 of 2006
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 452 of 2006
 

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

 

HIRASING
GULABSING VASAVE - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 12 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
EE SAIYED for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRS MUMTAZ SAIYED for Applicant(s) : 1, 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s)
: 2 - 3,5 - 13. 
MR DP KINARIWALA for Respondent(s) : 2 - 13. 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 31/08/2007 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
applicant has filed this application to condone delay of 123 days
caused in filing Criminal Revision Application No. 452/06.

2. The
opponents No. 2 to 13 were prosecuted for the offences punishable
under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 337, 504, 506 of I.P Code. The
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track
Court, Vyara by judgment dated 30.11.05 in Sessions Case No. 29/02
acquitted the opponents accused. Therefore, revision application
has been filed by the original complainant against the order of
acquittal and there is delay in filing of Revision Application.

3. I
have heard learned advocate for the parties and learned APP Ms
Meeta Panchal for the State.

4. Considering
the oral submissions and averments made in para 3 of the
application, it appears that there is no negligence or in-action on
the part of the applicant in preferring the revision Application.
The applicant has made out sufficient grounds for condonation of
delay and therefore delay caused in filing Revision Application is
required to be condoned.

3. In
view of above, this application is allowed. Delay of 123 days caused
in filing of revision application is condoned. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.

(Bankim
Mehta,J)

mary//

   

Top