PANKAJKUMAR BALUBHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Pankajkumar Balubhai Gohil
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) RULE . Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 21st July, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Criminal Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.180 of 2007, whereby the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the revision application came to be rejected.
(3.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in Criminal Case No.2579/05 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valsad. The petitioner moved an application under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) seeking discharge from the alleged offence. By an order dated 19th January, 2007, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valsad rejected the said application. While rejecting the said application, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision application under section 397 of the Code before the District and Sessions Court, Valsad. As there was delay in filing the said application, the petitioner moved an application seeking condonation of delay being Criminal Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.180 of 2007, wherein he had specifically stated the reasons on account of which he was prevented from preferring the revision application in time. The said application had been moved jointly by the petitioner along with a co -accused Nareshbhai Prabhulal Jaiswal, wherein separate grounds had been stated on behalf of both the applicants. According to the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 21st July, 2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad rejected the said application. However, while rejecting the said application, the learned Presiding Officer has taken into account only the reasons put forth by the co -accused Nareshbhai Prabhulal Jaiswal, but has not at all applied his mind to the reasons stated by the petitioner regarding the cause for delay in preferring the revision application.
A plain reading of the impugned order dated 21st July, 2007 clearly shows that the learned Presiding Officer has not taken into account the grounds stated by the petitioner in the application, on account of which he could not file the application in time. In the circumstances, the impugned order stands vitiated on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer has failed to apply his mind to the reasons advanced by the petitioner while preferring the application for condonation of delay and therefore, cannot be sustained.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.