Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Bhavsingbhai on 11 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Bhavsingbhai on 11 March, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/12877/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12877 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2212 of 2009
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

BHAVSINGBHAI
VECHATBHAI PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present application is preferred for leave to appeal against the
Judgement and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated
29.04.2009 in Sessions Case No. 118/06, whereby both the accused are
acquitted for the offences under sections 143,395 and 427 of the
IPC.

We
have heard the learned APP. We have considered the Judgement and
Order of the learned Sessions Judge. We have also considered the
record and deposition of the witnesses.

It
appears to us that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is a
good case to be considered in the appeal and leave deserves to be
granted. However, so far as accused No.2 is concerned, upon perusal
of the record, it appears to us that there is no sufficient evidence
about his presence at the time of incident. Therefore, if the
benefit is given by the learned Sessions Judge to the accused No.2,
the same cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, leave does not
deserve to be granted for preferring appeal qua accused No.2.

In
view of the aforesaid, leave to appeal granted for accused No.1 and
not granted for accused No.2.

Application
disposed of accordingly.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.)

(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top