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 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vandanaben vs Arjun on 9 August, 2010

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8703/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8703 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 978 of 2010
 

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

 

VANDANABEN
D/O HASMUKHLAL TRIVEDI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

ARJUN
PRADEEPBHAI SOJITRA (PATEL) & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SANDEEP R LIMBANI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR YOGESH LAKHANI, SR COUNSEL for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 2. 
MS ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to delete para. 18 and 19 of the petition. Permission is granted.

Grievance of the petitioner is that learned Sessions Judge had announced the date of final judgement in the trial of Sessions Case No. 48/2007 without disposing of two applications exh. 302 and 303 filed by the petitioner herein. Though in this application, petitioner has stated that no reply to this applications have been filed and no hearing has taken place, learned counsel for the original accused stated under instructions that these applications have already been heard and learned Sessions Judge proposed to dispose of them at the time of rendering final judgement.

Insofar as application exh. 302 is concerned, same is requesting for further investigation and so far as application exh. 303 is for addition of accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to observations made by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 17.5.2010 passed below application exh. 161 wherein Learned Judge has made serious observations against present petitioner original respondents. Such observations shall be treated as prima facie in nature and not binding to the parties.

In facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge is requested to pronounce his orders on those applications before fixing any other appropriate date for pronouncement for final judgements. With these directions the petition is disposed of (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)     Top