Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5105 Guj
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9759/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
9759 of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7724 of 2024
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9818 of 2024
In
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7725 of 2024
==========================================================
ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI S/O VITHALBHAI BHANDERI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. GAURAV A. GOGIA(14128) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.MITESH AMIN ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Advocate
General Mr.Mitesh Amin waives the service of notice of
rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 513
days for filing the present appeal. Considering the
explanation offered in the application more particularly in
paragraph No.2 and 3 and considering the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9759/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1790, wherein the Apex Court has held that
the period which is consumed in proceedings, which was
initiated before the wrong forum is to be excluded.
Relevant paragraphs No.3 and 4 are reproduced
hereinbelow:
"3. It is an accepted position that the appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court on 24.02.2018, which was not entertained vide the order dated 07.03.2018 on the ground that the appellant should approach the Appellate Authority. The appellant is entitled to ask for exclusion of the said period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Exclusion of time is different and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned. Of course for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied.
4. In the facts of the present case, we find that the period from the date of filing of the writ petition on 24.02.2018 and the date on which it was dismissed as not entertained viz. 07.03.2018, should have been Bona fides of the appellant in filing the writ petition are not challenged. Further, immediately after the dismissal of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9759/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
the writ petition, the appellant did file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. On exclusion of the aforesaid period, the appeal preferred by the appellant would be within the condonable period. Accordingly, we direct that the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant would be treated as allowed. The delay is directed to be condoned."
3. In view of the above, the delay which caused in preferring
this appeal appears to be genuine and, therefore the
same is required to be allowed.
4. Resultantly, this application for condonation of delay is
allowed. Delay of 513 days occurred in preferring the
criminal appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!