Whether vs The on 8 September, 2011

  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1093/1985	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1093 of 1985
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	 
	 
		 
			 
				 

1.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
			
			 
				 

No
			
		
	
	 
		 
			 
				 

2.
			
			 
				 

To
				be referred to the Reporter or not ?
			
			 
				 

No
			
		
		 
			 
				 

3.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
			
			 
				 

No
			
		
		 
			 
				 

4.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
				interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
				made thereunder ?
			
			 
				 

No
			
		
		 
			 
				 

5.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
			
			 
				 

No
			
		
	

 

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

NATVARSINH
MOHANSINH PARMAR - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR DD VYAS
for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR
LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 08/09/2011 

 

 
 


 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

Today
when the present Special Criminal Application of the year 1985 is
taken up for hearing, Shri Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has stated that he has no further instruction in
the matter. He prays for time. Considering the fact that the
present special criminal application is of the year 1985, the
adjournment is refused and present special criminal application is
dismissed for non-prosecution for want of instruction. Rule
discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated
forthwith.

(M.R.

Shah, J.)

*menon

Top