1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

Krushnakant Natvarlal Pandya . & vs State Of Gujarat &

High Court Of Gujarat|19 September, 2013
Heard Mr. R. H. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicants and Ms. Rohini Acharya, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
On a perusal of the document, which is said to have been forged, it is apparent that the same does not bear the signature of the respondent No.2 nor has notary put his seal on photographs. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that any forged notarized document has been created, inasmuch as, the document in question nowhere shows that the same has been executed by the respondent No.2.
In the aforesaid premises, issue rule, returnable on 21 st October, 2013. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned Additional Public Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/3313/2012 ORDER Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. Rohini Acharya, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.s Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till the final disposal of the application.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Vahid Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.