Gujarat High Court
Kanaiyalal Motiram Rao vs State Of ... on 28 November, 2014
Bench: M.R. Shah, R.D.Kothari
R/CR.A/1172/1998 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1172 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI sd/
=============================================
A Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to NO
the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO
=============================================
KANAIYALAL MOTIRAM RAO....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MS SM AHUJA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. NISHA THAKORE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI
Date : 28/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Page 1 of 3 R/CR.A/1172/1998 JUDGMENT Sessions Case No.311 of 1997 convicting the appellant herein original accused no.2 for the offences under Section 302 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine, the appellant herein original accused no.2 - Kanaiyalal Rao has preferred present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such by order dated 1.5.2001 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3081 of 2001, the appellant herein - original accused no.2 was released on bail considering the physical condition of the convict as it was found that the health of the convict who was suffering from paralysis was deteriorating.
3.0. Today, when the present appeal is taken up for final hearing, it is reported by Ms. Ahuja, learned advocate for the appellant original accused no.2 and Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State that during the pendency of the present appeal and as such after the accused was released on bail by the Division Bench of this Court, the appellant has expired. Ms. Thakore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report from the P.I. Jasodanagar Police Station, Vatva, Ahmedabad informing that the appellant herein has expired and his family members have shifted to Rajashthan.
4.0. In view of the above, we dispose of the present appeal as having been abated. However, liberty is reserved in favour of Page 2 of 3 R/CR.A/1172/1998 JUDGMENT State to revive the present appeal in case of difficulty and / or in case the aforesaid facts are found other way. With this, present appeal is dismissed as having been abated.
sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Kaushik Page 3 of 3