Gujarat High Court High Court

Susil vs State on 7 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Susil vs State on 7 October, 2008
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/12475/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12475 of 2008
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 647 of 2008
 

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


 

SUSIL
MOTILAL MEHTA & 4 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NIRUPAM NANAVATY with MR. YASH N NANAVATY for Applicants : 1 - 5. 
MR
AJ DESAI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MRS
SHILPA R SHAH for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/10/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule. Mr. A.J.

Desai, learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent No.1 and
Ms. Shilpa Shah waives service on behalf of respondent No.2.

Heard Mr. Nirupam
Nanavaty for the petitioners and Mr. A.J. Desai and Ms. Shipla Shah
for the respective respondents.

By filing this
application, the petitioners have prayed to condone delay of 108 days
in filing Criminal Revision Application against the judgment and
order dated 12.03.08 in Criminal Revision Application No. 452 of
2006.

Learned advocate
Mr. Nanavaty submitted that for the reasons which are assigned in the
application, the Revision could not be preferred in time and as the
delay has been properly explained in the application, the same may be
condoned.

Mr. A.J. Desai,
learned APP submitted that sufficient reasons are not assigned for
condonation of delay and therefore, this application deserves to be
dismissed.

Ms. Shilpa Shah,
learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the
petitioners have not approached the Honourable Court with clean hands
and have also not adequately explained the reasons for delay in
filing the Revision Application and therefore the application
deserves to be rejected.

Having considered
the rival submissions and having perused the averments made in the
petition, delay caused in filing the Revision, in my considered view,
is required to be condoned. Hence, delay in filing the Revision is
condoned.

Rule is made
absolute accordingly.

List the main
Revision Application for admission hearing on 13th October
2008.

mathew							[H.B.ANTANI,
J.]

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top