Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/209/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 209 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
JAVEDKHAN
@ JAEED AZIZKHAN PATHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MUKUL SINHA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PRAKASH JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 19/04/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard
learned advocates for the parties at length. The learned Public
Prosecutor has placed on record
the affidavit affirmed by Shri G.S.Khaira, Dy. Superintendent,
Central Prison, Ahmedabad, indicating that the State would take a
fresh decision independent of the earlier decision taken by the
State Government on the basis of the report of the Committee and
considering all the aspects of the case, the decision would be taken
on or before 30.6.2011. In view of this affidavit, Shri Sinha
submitted that the State be directed to take decision without being
influenced by the earlier order which is impugned in this petition
and the time limit for taking decision which is indicated to be
30.6.2011 be curtailed and the decision should be taken as soon as
possible. The Court is of the view that the statement made in para-4
of the affidavit is sufficient to take care of anxiety expressed by
Shri Sinha and, therefore, there is no need to pass any further
order thereupon. The time limit prescribed for taking decision is,
in fact, based upon the factor
like meeting of Advisory Committee, which has been constituted under
the provisions of the Bombay Jail Manual which is likely to be
convened in the second week or third week of May, 2011. In my view,
when such an affidavit is filed and when State has come forward with
a decision to consider the matter for grant of remission to the
petitioner independent of the earlier decision, no further order is
required to be made and hence this petition is disposed of with
direction to State to abide by the affidavit, which is stated to be
filed under the instructions from the State authority concerned.
The
earlier order thus now have no life and the State is to decide the
matter as is stated in para-4 in the affidavit. Rule discharged. No
order as to costs.
(S. R. BRAHMBHATT, J.)
kks
Top