Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7132/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7132 of 2007
In
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 340 of 2007
=========================================================
YASMINBANU
M.SIDDIQUE - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr. M. A
Patel APP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
Mr. T. R Savani
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 04/10/2007
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
applicant has filed this application to condone delay of 56 days
caused in filing Criminal Revision Application No 340/07.
2. The
opponents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section
326, 323, 504 and 114 of I.P Code and section 135 of B.P Act.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar by his judgment
and order dated 7.8.06 in criminal case No. 310/98 acquitted the
applicant for the offences charged against him. The State preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 79/06 before Sessions Court, Bharuch Camp at
Ankleshwar. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C No. 3 by his
judgment dated 29.1.07 dismissed the appeal and confirmed judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment the applicant/ original complainant has preferred
Criminal Revision Application No. 340/07 and there is delay of 56
days in filing of revision application. Therefore present
application has been filed to condone delay caused in filing
Criminal Revision Application.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. T. A Savani has stated that he has instructions to
appear on behalf of opponents No. 2 and 3 and shall file his
vakalatnama in due course.
4. I
have heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.
Savani for the opponents and learned APP Mr Patel for the State.
5. Having
regard to the oral submissions and averments made in the application
more particularly averments made in para 2,3 and 4 of the
application, it appears that there is no negligence or in-action on
the part of the applicant in preferring the revision application.
The delay cannot be attributed to the applicant and the applicant
has shown sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Therefore this
application is required to be allowed.
6. In
view of above, this application is allowed. Delay of 56 days caused
in preferring criminal revision application is condoned. Rule is made
absolute.
(Bankim
N. Mehta,J)
mary//
Top
