Gujarat High Court High Court

Kanukumar vs State on 28 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Kanukumar vs State on 28 May, 2010
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/290/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 290 of 2010
 

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

 

KANUKUMAR
AMRUTLAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BC DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MG NANAVATI, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/05/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia
prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11th
May 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.3, Mehsana camp at Visnagar, below Exhibit 64 in Sessions
Case No.38 of 2009.

It
is pertinent to note that by way of impugned order the learned Judge
has allowed the application submitted by the Investigating Officer
for production of certain documents and articles before the Court.
It is required to be noted that the learned Judge appreciating the
pros and cons of the matter has allowed the said application. It has
been rightly observed by the learned Judge that if the said
application is not allowed, it would amount to shutting down the
doors of appreciation of evidence at the initial stage. In my
opinion, the learned Judge has assigned cogent and convincing
reasons while allowing the said application. Hence, I do not find
any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the
learned Judge. The present application is devoid of any substance
and merits and therefore, the same is required to be rejected.

In
view of aforesaid, the present application fails and is,
accordingly, rejected summarily.

It
is, however, made clear that the applicant will have an opportunity
to cross-examine the witness and also to recall the witnesses, if it
is necessary and is permitted by the trial Court, so that it may not
prejudice the applicant.

(M.D.

Shah, J)

Aakar

   

Top