Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Popatbhai on 26 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Popatbhai on 26 February, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/52/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 52 of 2010
 

With
 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 10 of
2010 
=========================================================

STATE
OF GUJARAT – Applicant(s)

Versus

POPATBHAI
GANDABHAI RATHOD & 10 – Respondent(s)

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

Appearance
:

Mr.

Devang Vyas, APP for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 –

11.
=========================================================

CORAM
:

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

and

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA

Date
: 26/02/2010

ORAL
COMMON ORDER

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

1. 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-removing of office objections.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. An
endorsement be obtained from the concerned persons (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.

6. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is granted time up to 19.03.2010
to remove office objections.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

..mitesh..

   

Top