Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Samsubhai on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Samsubhai on 26 August, 2010
Author: Anil R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/3395/2005	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3395 of 2005
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 932 of 2004
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SAMSUBHAI
HUMJIBHAI DAMORE & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

==============================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
LR PUJARI, APP  for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
==================================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2005 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE)

1. The
opponents of this application were served with the notice of this
Court on 30th September, 2005. Hearing of the application
had taken place on 3rd October, 2005. As nobody appeared
for the opponents, in the interest of justice, the hearing had been
adjourned to today. Today also nobody has appeared for the opponents
and, therefore, the application is heard on merits.

2. This
is an application for condonation of delay of 151 days caused in
filing Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2004.

3. Learned
APP Mr.Pujari has submitted that the delay had been caused because of
administrative reasons. He has submitted that the office of the Legal
Department had to examine whether an appeal should be filed, and for
that purpose, the record pertaining to the case and certified copy of
the judgment was required to be gone through carefully. In the
aforesaid process, the delay had been caused. He has, therefore,
submitted that in the interest of justice
the delay be condoned.

4. We
have heard the learned APP and have also gone through the reasons
given in the application filed by the applicant.

5. Looking
to the facts of the case, in the interest
of justice, we condone the delay. The
application is disposed of as granted. Rule is made absolute.

 

 


 

(
A.R. Dave, J. )     ( M.D. Shah, J. ) 

 

syed/
 

 



    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top