Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Sabbirbhai on 26 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Sabbirbhai on 26 April, 2010
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13634/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 


IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 


 


 


CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13634 of 2009
 


In


 


CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13633 of 2009
 


In
 


 CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2431 of 2009
 


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


STATE
OF GUJARAT,FOR & ON BEHALF OF C P GOHIL,FOOD INSPECTOR -
Applicant(s)
 


Versus
 


SABBIRBHAI
TAHARALI DAUIDI, DISTRIBUTOR & PARTNER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MS CM SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1, 3, 
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for Respondent(s) :
2, 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah for the aplicant-
State.

2. The
applicant State of Gujarat has filed this application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 7 days
occurred in filing the leave to appeal, application and appeal
challenging the order of acquittal dated 29th April, 2009
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadhvan in Criminal
Case No.100 of 2000 acquitting the accused respondents hereinabove of
the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 2(1-a)(m),
Sections 7(1) and 7(5) and under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act
for the sake of brevity).

3. This
Court (Coram: S.R. Brambhatt, J.) on 19.3.2010 issued rule in the
condonation of delay application, which was made returnable on
19.4.2010. Today, as could be seen from the endorsement, the
respondents No.1 and 3 are served and respondent no.2 has expired.
None is appearing for any of the respondent though served.

4. The
Court, after hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is of the
view that the delay is required to be condoned and, accordingly, the
application is allowed and delay is condoned.

(S.

R. Brahmbhatt, J. )

sudhir

   

Top