Gujarat High Court
Bhupendrasinh Kamalsinh Bhardwaj vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3062/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3062 of
2025
==========================================================
BHUPENDRASINH KAMALSINH BHARDWAJ
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KEVAL G BRAHMBHATT (BAROT)(9900) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 07/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keval Brahmbhatt for
the petitioner and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for
the respondent No.1 - State. Though served, none
appears for respondent No.2 - original complainant.
2. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives
service for respondent No.1 - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that the
respondent No.2 herein - original complainant has
instituted one complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.
Thereafter, the trial commenced and ultimately at the
end of the day, vide judgment and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3062/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
29.07.2024, learned Trial Court convicted the
petitioner for the said offence. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment and order of conviction, the
petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the
learned Appellate Court. However, as there was delay
of 152 days in preferring the appeal, separate
application for condonation of delay also came to be
preferred by the petitioner. However, the said
application is dismissed by the learned Appellate
Court. Therefore, present petition is preferred.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further
submits that on account of dismissal of application
seeking condonation of delay, valuable right of the
petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of
conviction is jeopardized. He further submits that
petitioner was not aware about passing of the order
of conviction by the learned Trial Court and the
order of conviction is passed in his absence and
therefore delay is occurred in preferring the appeal.
Though the petitioner has explained sufficient cause
for delay in preferring the appeal, the learned
Appellate Court overlooked it and passed the order
dismissing the application seeking condonation of
delay. Hence, the impugned order may be quashed and
set aside.
5. Learned APP Ms. Pathak has strongly objected
present petition with vehemence and submits that
learned Appellate Court has not committed any error
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3062/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
while dismissing the application seeking condonation
of delay. She, therefore, submits that present
petition may be dismissed.
6. To prefer an appeal against the order of
conviction is a statutory right of the convict and
the said right cannot be jeopardized merely on the
ground of delay in preferring the appeal.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.02.2025
passed by learned 11th Additional District Judge,
Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.312 of 2025
is hereby quashed and set aside and delay in
preferring the appeal is condoned. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
