Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Jitendrasinh on 25 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Jitendrasinh on 25 February, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/74920/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 749 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 144 of 2010
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 144 of 2010
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

JITENDRASINH
NARVARSINH RAULJI & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

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


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date :
25/02/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Devang Vyas.

The
matters filed by the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Gujarat, are notified for non-removal of office objections.

In
some of the matters, there are office objections like ‘pagination is
not done’, ‘the appeal memo is not signed’, etc.

These
objections can be taken care with little vigilance on the part of the
office of the Public Prosecutor.

The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in some of the
matters, the Registry insists for filing certified copy of the
judgment even in the second set when the matter is to be listed
before the Division Bench.

It
is curious why the Registry should insist for filing certified copy
of the judgment in the second set. The Registry should not take such
unreasonable stand in the matter. In the event, the certified copy if
fully legible, a xerox copy of the same be filed in the second set,
with a due care that the same should be legible. This will avoid
delay in listing the matters before the Court.

An
endorsement be obtained from the concerned person (clerical staff of
the office of the Public Prosecutor) to the effect that in the event
the Court requires a typed copy of the judgment or any other
document, the same will be supplied.

The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is granted time upto 19.3.2010
to remove office objections.

(Ravi
R. Tripathi, J.)

(J.C.

Upadhyaya, J.)

(karan)

   

Top