Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/365/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 365 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 368 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 377 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 468 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 585 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 661 of 2006
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 355 of 2006
=========================================================
KAMLESHKUMAR
CHANDRAKANT VYAS @ NAYAN CHIMANLAL SHAH - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
Chirag Panchal for UTPAL M PANCHAL for
Appellant(s) : 1, (CR.A 365/06)
Mr.
D.N.Vakil for Mr.H.L.Patel, Advocates for Appellant(s):1,
(CR.A 368/06)
Mr.Maulik Nanavati,A.P.P. for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 05/02/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. In
this group of appeals, one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
152 of 2006 is stated to have been released on bail and the remaining
persons convicted by the common judgement and order dated 26.12.2005
in Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of 2003, the appellants herein, are
stated to be still in jail. Learned counsel for those appellants have
submitted, on instructions, that the appellants were not pressing the
appeal on merits and restricting the prayer to reducing the sentence
on the basis that maximum punishment for 07 years of rigorous
imprisonment was harsh and the appellants have already undergone
major part of that sentence during pendency of the trial and the
present appeals.
2. It
was submitted on behalf of the appellants and fairly conceded by
learned A.P.P., Mr. Nanavati, that the amounts of fine imposed by the
impugned orders were already paid and remaining period of
imprisonment for each of the appellants herein did not exceed
approximately six months; while the appeals were not likely to be
heard on merits within the next six months in view of pendency of and
priority accorded to appeals filed earlier. It was, on that basis,
submitted that the appeals would become infructuous and when the
appellants were giving up
their challenge to the judgement on merits on other grounds and were
not reported to have any record of other offences before or after the
order of conviction, the court was required to take a lenient view
and consider the appellants to have been sufficiently punished, even
before the appeals could be heard on merits.
3. Learned
A.P.P. having no objection, the prayer made on behalf of the
appellants to restrict the appeals only to the part of sentence is
acceded and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer to
reduce the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone is granted.
Accordingly, reducing the sentence of each of the appellants herein
to the period of imprisonment already undergone, the sentence imposed
in the impugned judgement and order is modified accordingly, and
partly allowing the appeals the appellants are directed to be
released, if not required to be
detained pursuant to any other case, for having undergone the
full term of imprisonment as modified by this order. The appeals
stand disposed accordingly.
Sd/-
(D.H.WAGHELA,J.)
Jyoti
Top
