Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12090/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12090 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12089 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2064 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
VINESH
@ VINU TEJABHAI DESAI & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RC KODEKAR, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HIMANSU M PADHYA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
Respondent(s) : 2 SERVED,
MR CHETAN K PANDYA
for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR ASHISH D OZA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 06/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1. By
instant Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
(‘Act’, for short), the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of
10 days caused in filing the above-numbered Criminal Appeal, which is
directed against the judgment and order dated 8th May 2009
rendered in Sessions Case No.241/2007 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad, by which the respondents came
to be acquitted for the offences under Sections 399, 402 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The
reasons as to why the Appeal could not be filed are detailed in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Application. The averments made in the
application have been supported by the affidavit sworn in by Shri
G.P.Rathod, Under Secretary, Legal Department, Sachivalaya,
Gandhinagar. It is, inter alia, stated that because of inter
department and intra departmental proceedings considerable time has
been consumed and, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing the
above-numbered Criminal Appeal. He has, therefore, prayed to condone
the delay.
3. Having
heard Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the applicant State of
Gujarat and upon perusal of the averments made in the Application,
which have remained uncontroverted and 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 the applicant has amply elaborated and
sufficiently explained the delay caused in filing the Criminal
Appeal. There was no negligence or inaction on the part of the
applicant in prosecuting the Appeal. The explanation offered by the
applicant for condonation of delay is not only plausible, but
acceptable.
4. In
view of the aforesaid, according to us, this application deserves to
be allowed by condoning the delay as prayed for.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the Application succeeds and accordingly it is
allowed. The delay of 10 days caused in filing the above-numbered
Criminal Appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(A.M.Kapadia,
J.)
(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)
/moin
Top