Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Ambalal Taviyad vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2019
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/SCR.A/6287/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6287 of 2018
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI AMBALAL TAVIYAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAVIK A RAMANI(6969) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 27/02/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This Court passed following order on 15.02.2019:
"Both the witnesses, whose serum truth is to be done, are ready.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the complainant does not require to be examined by FSL. Let the same be coordinated and let them be taken to FSL by the police vehicle. Ranchhodbhai Vadi, who is suffering from paralysis, will not be examined unless medically opined. Rest of the aspects, as directed earlier, shall be investigated and the report shall be submitted to this Court on or before the next date.
S.O. to 27.02.2019. To be listed in first 30 matters."
2. Today, Head Constable, Santrampur Police Station is present and submits a report, Dated:
26.02.2019, of SDS Test.
3. It is urged by the learned APP, on Page 1 of 2 R/SCR.A/6287/2018 ORDER instructions, that both the witnesses had chosen not to undergo the tests. The report from FSL is not, yet, received.
4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Ramani, appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, has submitted that both the witnesses were asked to stay for two days at FSL with no preparation on the part of the petitioner and with no accommodation, and therefore, they had refused.
5. Learned APP would let this Court know, as to whether, there is requirement of attendance and stay of two days as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
6. The petitioner-original complainant is present and he submits that he is ready to undergo the test. However, it was his unpreparedness for stay for two days, which had come at the 11th hour that he had chosen not to undergo tests. S.O. to 12TH MARCH, 2019.
(SONIA GOKANI, J) UMESH/-
Page 2 of 2