State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Durlabhjibhai ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14960 Guj

     R/CR.MA/18310/2020                             ORDER DATED: 23/09/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18310 of 2020
                           In
     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18308 of 2020

======================================
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                          Versus
           BHARATBHAI DURLABHJIBHAI GONDALIYA
======================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS JAGRUTI J BUDDHBHATTI(11064) for the Respondent(s) No.
1
======================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                             Date : 23/09/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Mr. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate waives service of Notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 - Accused.

2. This application is filed praying for condoning delay of 553 days occurred in preferring Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 02.06.2018 rendered in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2008 acquitting the respondent - accused, who was serving as Head Clerk in the office of Prohibition and Excise, Class III, Junagadh.

3. Mr. J.M. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate with Ms. Jagruti Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for respondent -

R/CR.MA/18310/2020 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2021

accused, submitted that as such there is no explanation offered in the delay condonation application, and therefore, delay may not be condoned.

4. However, for the reasons stated in the application itself and in absence of any formal affidavit opposing delay, of course orally objected to, the delay caused in preferring the aforesaid acquittal appeal of 553 days being not deliberate and as there is no negligence or inaction in challenging the order of acquittal, I deem it fit to condone the delay caused in preferring the Appeal.

5. The State being impersonal machinery when influential persons may hinder filing of prompt Appeals, however, considering the real object behind preferring the Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded in a case for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, normally delay may be condoned as by condoning the delay only dead right of the State is revived and not the judgment and order of acquittal is being reversed by the said decision. Hence, the delay of 553 days caused in preferring the Appeal is hereby condoned.

6. With this, the present application is disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)

siji