Gujarat High Court High Court

Kalim vs State on 12 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Kalim vs State on 12 January, 2011
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/12221/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12221 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 977 of 2007
 

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

 

KALIM
AHMED @ KALIM MULLA MOHAMMED HABIB KARIMI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
AFTABHUSEN ANSARI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR JAYANT PANCHAL, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/01/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

1. Mr.

Aftabhusen Ansari, learned advocate for the applicant states that in
this matter, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned advocate of New Delhi is
appearing as Counsel and she is busy in the Court at New Delhi. He
therefore, urges to adjourn the matter.

2. Mr.

Jayant Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor states that the
criminal appeal, in which this application seeking suspension of
sentence has been moved, has already been listed for final hearing
board and the said criminal appeal is adjourned from time to time, as
the time is sought for on behalf of learned advocate for the
appellant. He further states that the Supreme Court has also issued
direction to expedite the hearing of the criminal appeal. Therefore,
time, as prayed for by the learned advocate for the applicant may not
be granted as the learned advocate for the applicant is not
interested in arguing the main appeal and interested only in getting
the order of suspension of sentence.

3. Be
the case as it may be, since learned advocate for the applicant has
prayed for time as Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned advocate of New
Delhi is appearing as Counsel in this matter, in the interest of
justice, the matter is adjourned to 10.2.2011.

(A.M.KAPADIA, J.)

(BANKIM.N.MEHTA, J.)

shekhar/-

   

Top