Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

State vs Hitesh on 25 February, 2010

Author: R.Tripathi

Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13983/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13983 of 2009
 

With
 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2486 of 2009
 

 
=========================================


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT
 

Versus
 

HITESH
CHIMANBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS
 

=========================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DEVANG VYAS, ADDITIONAL UBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
the Applicant 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Vyas.

The matters filed by the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Gujarat are notified for non-removing of office objections.

In some of the matters, there are office objections like 'pagination is not done', 'the appeal memo is not signed', etc. These objections can be taken care with little vigilance on the part of the office of the Public Prosecutor.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in some of the matters, the Registry insists for filing certified copy of the judgment even in the second set when the matter is to be listed before the Division Bench.

It is curious why the Registry should insist for filing certified copy of the judgment in the second set. The Registry should not take such unreasonable stand in the matter. In the event, the certified copy if fully legible, a xerox copy of the same be filed in the second set, with a due care that the same should be legible. This will avoid delay in listing the matters before the Court.

An endorsement be obtained from the concerned person (Clerical Staff of the office of the Public Prosecutor) to the effect that in the event the Court requires a typed copy of the judgment or any other document, the same will be supplied.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is granted time up to 19.03.2010 to remove office objections.

(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) (J.C.Upadhyaya, J.) *Shitole     Top