State vs Jayantbhai on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Jayantbhai on 26 August, 2010
Author: Anil R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/3393/2005	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3393 of 2005
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1010 of 2004
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

JAYANTBHAI
HIRABHAI VANKAR & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

==============================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
LR PUJARI, APP  for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
==================================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2005 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE)

1. This
is an application for condonation of delay of 11 days caused in
filing Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 2004.

2. In
pursuance of notice issued by this Court, Mr.Yogesh Thakkar, learned
advocate appeared for the opponents.

3. Learned
APP Mr.Pujari appearing for the applicant has submitted that due to
administrative reasons, the afore-stated delay had been caused in
filing the appeal. He has submitted that along with the certified
copy of the judgment, copies of relevant record had been forwarded by
the Public Prosecutor, Panchmahals District to the Legal Department,
and in the Legal Department several officers
had examined whether an appeal should be filed. In the said process,
the afore-stated delay had been caused. He has further submitted
that there was no lethargy or carelessness on the part of the
officers who had examined the case but only on account of
afore-stated administrative reasons, the delay had been caused. He
has prayed that in the interest of justice, the afore-stated delay
may kindly be condoned.

4. On
the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Thakkar has submitted that the
Government authorities ought to have acted promptly because the
officers of the Legal Department very well knew about the period of
limitation. He has, therefore, submitted that the delay should not
be condoned.

5. We
have heard the learned advocates and have also gone through the
contents of the application stating the reasons for which the delay
had been caused. In our opinion, the case has been made out for
condonation of the delay and, therefore, we condone the delay.

6. The
application stands disposed of as granted. The delay is condoned.
Rule is made absolute.

 

 


 

(
A.R. Dave, J. )     ( M.D. Shah, J. ) 

 

syed/
 

 



    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top
	   
      


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *