Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P.M.RAVAL
Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2025 has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent–State.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. The present group of revision applications arises from a common order passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, whereby the applications preferred by the present applicants seeking (i) condonation of delay in filing discharge applications under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), and (ii) discharge from the offences alleged, came to be rejected.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants — Directors, Non-Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer and medical practitioners associated with Khyati Hospital, Ahmedabad — in alleged connivance with one another, entered into a criminal conspiracy to derive pecuniary advantage under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). It is alleged that patients were induced to undergo angiography and angiop
The sixty-day limitation for discharge applications does not extinguish the right thereof if delay is satisfactorily explained; compliance with document supply is crucial for a fair trial.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay under the Limitation Act must be established, aligning government entities with private litigants regarding the standards for delay condonation.
The court emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay, highlighting that procedural errors should not obstruct substantial justice when sufficient cause is shown.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay must be interpreted liberally, but revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for issues already adjudicated by a coordinate bench.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a genuine and substantiated reason for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and highlights the need for partie....
Condonation of delay in filing a charge sheet is permissible under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the delay is satisfactorily explained and necessary for the interests of justice.
The court held that failure to give the accused an opportunity to file for discharge before framing charges violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing a revision petition must not involve negligence, and reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for matters already adj....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
