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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 558

B.C.PATEL, M.R.CALLA, R.K.ABICHANDANI
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
KAILASHCHANDRA BADRIPRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.P.RAVAL

B. C. PATEL, J.

( 1 ) THE matter referred to this Full Bench raises an important question having bearing on the right of an accused viz. , Can delay in filing of an appeal by the State be condoned without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused?

( 2 ) THE State of Gujarat preferred an appeal being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court, ahmedabad wherein the accused Kailashchandra Badriprasad and Ors. , were tried for an offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act in special Case No. 4 of 1993. As there was delay of 81 days in filing the appeal, the State preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 4735 of 1995 for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

( 3 ) THE attention of the Division Bench hearing the application filed by the State against Kailashchandra Badrinath and Ors. , was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat v. Ramesh L. Chauhan, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1577, inter alia, requesting that the Court in exercise of its discretionary powers, can condone the delay in instituting an appeal or revision without hearing the other side.

( 4 ) THE














































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