SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Guj) 115

K.J.VAIDYA
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
MOHANLAL VALJI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: ADHVARYU, C.H.Vora, S.R.DIVETIA

K. J. VAIDYA, J.

( 1 ) IN this delay condonation application the question of quite great importance that arises for the consideration is: Whether in a case where the Trial indisputedly commences on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and results into acquittal of the accused and further when the impugned order of acquittal though not challenged by the said complainant himself but yet at the same time the same came to be challenged none-the-less at his instance through the instrumentality of the State Government then whether the special benefit of the larger period of limitation of six months for filing the Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 which is otherwise available to the public servants can be reasonably availed of to hold that the acquittal appeal in question though formally filed by the State and therefore was technically beyond time and yet in substance and the spirit the same having been basically filed at the instance of the Food Inspector who is a public servant the same was within the time period of limitation.

( 2 ) TO appreciate and elicit the answer to the above question it is necessary first of all to set out









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top