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

Patel Dineshkumar Manilal vs State Of Gujarat &

High Court Of Gujarat|26 September, 2013
This matter has been listed for 32 times. The record shows that as back as on 18.6.2008, the Court has recorded that Mr.P.J.Yagnik for the petitioner has filed sick-note and that petition is being adjourned from time to time since December, 2007 mostly because of the leave note of the petitioner s advocate or at the request of petitioner s advocate. With such observation, matter was adjourned to 4.7.2008.
On 25.9.2008, the Court has directed the Government Pleader to inquire as to whether the charge is framed by the trial Court in the concerned case or not. By order dated 15.10.2008, while the revision application was admitted, there was a direction to expedite the same. By order dated 26.12.2012, it has been disclosed that nobody is present for the applicant throughout the day. The matter is pending for the last five years. The applicant is on bail, therefore, he may be not interested to proceed further in the matter, with further direction to issue show-cause notice to the applicant as to why his bail should not be cancelled by the next date. The record shows that though it was not necessary and compulsory, in pursuance to such order a notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.12.2012 which has been served upon the petitioner on or about 5.1.2013. Even thereafter, petitioner has not remained present before the Court till date. The record shows that even after January, 2013, on all occasions, petitioner has either prayed for time or matter was adjourned because of sick-note filed by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
Today also there is sick-note of learned advocate Mr.Yagnik. Therefore, the matter is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Learned advocate Mr.Y.V.Brahmbhatt for respondent no.2 has disclosed that present revision application is filed against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner from the charges u/ss.406, 420, 114 and 34 of the IPC and though there is no stay to proceed further in the matter and though once the Court has called for information regarding the status of the case, the trial Court is not proceeding further because of pendency of this revision application. Therefore also, the matter is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, considering the sick-note of Mr.Yagnik, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned to 1.10.2013. It is made clear that since there is no stay against the further proceeding of the criminal case by the trial Court, copy of this order shall be forwarded to the trial Court to proceed further with the matter without waiting for the outcome of this revision application. Respondent no.2 can also file copy of this order before the trial Court for the purpose.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy 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.