Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4256/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4256 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 545 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 545 of 2008
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 ?
=========================================================
M
R BHATIA - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HEMANG R RAWAL for
Applicant
MR KP RAVAL ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 06/04/2011
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned
advocates for the parties have requested to dispose of both these
matters as the order of release of muddamal – Sonography
machine is otherwise also not likely to be producing any result in
favour of present applicant and respondent in main Criminal Revision
Application. In view of the fact that the usage of sonography
machine is expressly restricted and in that view of the matter,
learned advocate has submitted that accused may not insist for
releasing of the machine in question but let there be appropriate
direction for preserving the machine in appropriate condition and
the criminal case be ordered to be decided within stipulated time as
it is pending since 2006. He further submitted that if such
direction is issued, the accused and advocate representing him would
cooperate and would avoid unnecessary adjournments.
In
view of this, the Criminal Misc. Application as well as Criminal
Revision Application are disposed of with following directions:
The
orders impugned in Criminal Revision Application are quashed and set
aside and the order of learned Magistrate would also now not survive
in view of the express concession of learned advocate given for the
accused. The authority in whose custody the machine is lying shall
take all due precaution for keeping it and shall take all precaution
so it may not be subjected to undue wear and tear and may not be
subjected to any hazardous handling.
The
criminal case is of the year 2006 and therefore, it is in the
fitness of thing to give direction to dispose of the same as early
as possible preferable within 6 months from the date of receipt of
writ.
With
these observations, Criminal Misc. Application as well as Criminal
Revision Application are disposed of. Rule is made absolute in
Criminal Revision Application No. 545 of 2008. Liberty to approach
the Court in case of difficulties. Direct service permitted.
Registry
is directed to keep the copy of this order in both the matters.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top