Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/918/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 918 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12828 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2200 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
MEHULKUMAR
NAVINCHANDRA PATEL & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RB PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6.
MR
SHIRISH R PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 27/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
By
filing instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (‘the Act’, for short), the applicant – State of Gujarat
has prayed to condone delay of 26 days caused in filing above
numbered Criminal Appeal, which is directed against the impugned
judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 474/2006 dated
06.07.2009, by the Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Ahmedabad
City, by which the respondents came to be acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 114 IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The
reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed in time are detailed
in paragraph 4 of the application. The averments made in the
application are supported by affidavit sworn by Mr.G.P.Rathod, Under
Secretary, Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, wherein it is
inter-alia stated that the delay has been caused because of
inter-department and intra-department proceedings. It is, therefore,
prayed to condone the delay.
Having
considered the submissions advanced by Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP,
for the applicant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Shirish Patel,
learned advocate for the respondents – accused, and on perusal
of the averments made in the application, which have remained
uncontroverted and considering the celebrated principles governing
the discretionary exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the
Act so also the reported decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
construing Section 5 of the Act liberally, we are of the considered
opinion that there was sufficient cause which prevented the
Applicant from filing the Appeal in time. The record does not
indicate that there was any inaction or negligence on the part of
the applicant in prosecuting the appeal. The applicant has never
abandoned the lis. The explanation offered by the Applicant for
condonation of delay is not only plausible, but acceptable.
Seen
in the above context, since there was sufficient cause which
prevented the applicant from filing the appeal in time, this
application deserves to be allowed by condoning the delay as prayed
for.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and accordingly it
is allowed. Delay of 26 days caused in filing the above numbered
Criminal Appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top