Gujarat High Court High Court

Kailashben vs State on 21 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Kailashben vs State on 21 October, 2008
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1064720/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10647 of 2008
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 141 of 2008
 

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

KAILASHBEN
W/O.RAMESHBHAI ZALAMAKWANA - Applicant
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS - Respondents
 

==================================================Appearance
: 
MR ND SONGARA for the
Applicant. 
MR PD BHATE, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent : 1. 
RULE SERVED for Respondents : 2 - 5. 
MR HM
PARIKH for Respondents : 2 - 5. 
MR RASESH H PARIKH for Respondents
: 2 - 5. 
==================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/10/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
learned Advocates for the respective parties, including learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. D. Bhate for respondent No. 1 –
State.

2. This
is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning
the delay of 15 days caused in preferring Criminal Revision
Application.

3. It
is submitted that the applicant could not obtain the Certified Copy
of the order dated 06-11-2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2007
and, therefore, he could not prefer the application in time. In view
of the above, it is submitted that the delay was caused in preferring
the appeal and the same may be condoned.

4. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. D. Bhate submitted that
the delay has not been sufficiently explained in the application and,
therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having
considered the submissions and on perusal of the averments made in
the application, more particularly paragraph 3 of the application,
the delay, in my considered view, has been sufficiently explained.
There was no inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant in
prosecuting the appeal.

6. In
view of the above, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Rule is made absolute.

[H.

B. ANTANI, J.]

/shamnath

   

Top