Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6011/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6011 of 2008
In
Criminal
Misc. Application No.14453 of 2007
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 805 of 2008
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAVAJI
LAKHAJI KOLI & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR KC SHAH APP
for Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1. 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 2 days caused in filing the above numbered
Criminal Misc. Application, which is filed seeking leave to
file
Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2008 against the judgment and
order dated 24.8.2007 rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No.67 of
2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court, Deesa, acquitting the respondents/accused of the
offences with which they are charged.
2. Reasons
as to why the Criminal Misc. Application seeking leave to file appeal
could not be filed in time are detailed in paras 3 to 5 of the
application. It is pleaded that there was sufficient cause on the
part of the applicant for not filing the Criminal Misc. Application
in time. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay.
3. We
have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. K.C. Shah, learned
APP for the applicant. Though served, opponents have not appeared and
contested the application. We have also considered the celebrated
principles governing the discretionary exercise of powers under
Section 5 of the Act and the reported decisions of the Supreme Court
construing Section 5 of the Act liberally.
4. So
far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned, it has to
be decided having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of (i) State of Bihar & others v. Kamleshwar
Prasad Singh & another, AIR 2000 SC 2306 (paras 11 to 14 of the
reported judgment), (ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy,
Judgment Today, 1998 (6) SC 242, (iii) State of Haryana v. Chandra
Mani & others, AIR 1996 SC 1623, (iv) Spl. Tehsildars, Land
Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, AIR 1996 SC 2750, (v) Punjab
Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited and others v. Union
of India and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 681, (vi) P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala and another (1997) 7 SCC 566 and (vii) Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and
other relevant decisions on the point.
5. Applying
the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred
to judgments to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for condonation of
delay. The record does not indicate that there was any inaction or
negligence on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the appeal.
The explanation for delay offered by the applicant is not only
plausible but acceptable and, therefore, the application deserves to
be granted.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and accordingly it is
allowed. Delay of 2 days caused in filing the above numbered
Criminal Misc. Application seeking leave to file criminal appeal is
condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(A.M.
Kapadia, J.)
(Z.K. Saiyed, J.)
…
(karan)
Top