Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15895/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15895 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2218 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2218 of 2010
=========================================================
TARU
GANGELE - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIGAM R SHUKLA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
The application and the
appeal are filed by the prosecutrix – victim of the offence
for challenging the order of acquittal dated 15.7.2010 of learned
Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case Nos.62 and 63 of
2005. Learned APP appearing for the respondent – State
submitted that an appeal from the same judgment is filed by the
State and that Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2011 is admitted on
29.8.2011. It was, therefore, submitted even by learned counsel,
Mr.Brijesh Limbachiya, appearing with learned counsel Mr.Mitesh
R.Amin, appearing for the original accused persons and respondents
No.2 to 5 herein that entertaining present application and appeal is
not necessary while the applicant shall have the right to assist
learned PP or learned APP, as the case may be, in the appeal of the
State. It was, however, insisted by learned counsel, Ms.Sancheti,
appearing for the applicant that the applicant/appellant has the
statutory right u/s.372 of the Cr.P.C. to present the appeal as the
victim, and the appellant would insist upon her independent right of
audience as the victim of the serious offences alleged to have been
committed upon her.
There was limited
consensus amongst learned counsel to the effect and to the extent
that as long as the statutory right of the appellant herein to
address the Court in the acquittal appeal was reserved and
protected, duplication of the appeals was neither necessary nor
desirable. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent fairly
conceded that counsel for the appellant herein shall not only be
allowed to assist the State in its appeal, but may be given right of
audience before the Court and name of learned advocate for the
appellant herein may be shown as appearing for the appellant in the
State appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2011.
In the above facts and
circumstances, Criminal Misc.Application No.15895 of 2011 is
disposed as unnecessary, insofar as leave to file the appeal is not
required under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and
Criminal Appeal No.2218 of 2010 is disposed, without entering into
merits, only on the ground and subject to the direction that learned
counsel appearing for the appellant shall have the right of audience
in the Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2011, as and when it is heard; and
upon filing of vakalatnama in that appeal by the appellant, name of
learned advocate for the appellant herein shall also be shown as
appearing for the appellant.
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top