9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advocate, Shri P.R. Abhichandani with Shri Harin P. Raval and learned APP, Shri A.J. Desai for the respondent-State. 2. This is an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 5185 days in filing restoration application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 3403 of 2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1990. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant, Mahesh Kantilal Soni, who is the original accused in criminal case No. 1208 of 1985 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Joint Court), Ahmedabad (Rural), who came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in defaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e removal of office objections nor informed about the order passed by this Court subsequently on 13-12-1995 by which the Court cancelled the bail bonds of the applicant. As per the submission made in the application, the learned advocate by letter dated 10-10-1995 written to the husband of the applicant had stated therein that revision application was pending before the Court and listed for final hearing on the Board. 5. Thus, the applicant was having bona fide impression that revision application was not heard and disposed of. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant was suffering from cancer and was required hospitalisation for taking urgent treatment. He ultimately expired on 2-3-1996 at M.P. Shah Cancer Hospital, Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, it is held that liberal view is required to be taken in the matter, if the bona fide mistake is committed by the applicant in preferring the application. The learned advocate has placed reliance on following judgments, they are as under : (1) In the case of Collector, Land Acquistion, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Other reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). (2) In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani Ors. Reported in 1996 (5) Supreme 75. (3) In the case of Chhaga Ramabhai and Others v. Heirs of Chhotabhai and Another reported in 1994 (1) G.L.H. 16. (4) In the case of State of Gujarat Ors. v. Legal Heirs of Ismali H. Ranza Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein that the order was passed on 9-11-1993 by the Court for removing the office objections and on 13-12-1995, the bail bonds of the applicant was cancelled. It is further stated in paragraph No. 3 that the learned advocate wrote letter dated 10-10-1993; wherein, he stated that revision application was pending before the High Court but the aforesaid fact has not been properly explained by the learned advocate while preferring the application for restoration. The learned advocate further submitted that the applicant has also not explained the delay from 13-12-1995 by which the bail bonds of the applicant was cancelled. Pendency of the revision application of the co-accused would have no consequence if the applicant has not explained the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by judgment and order dated 25-10-1988. He, thereafter, preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1988 which was dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 14-6-1990. Being aggrived by the aforesaid order the husband of the applicant preferred Criminal Revision application No. 191 of 1990 before this Court and the same was admitted by order dated 5-9-1990 and the husband of the applicant was directed to be enlarge on bail. At the time of the admission of the revision application, the Court directed the advocate of the applicant to remove office objections in the matter, failing which, the matter would stand dismissed for default. However, the learned advocate for the applicant could not remove the office objections in the Criminal Revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early 2 months. Apart form that even the delay from 13-12-1995 till about the time of the death of the husband has not explained. It has been contended by the learned advocate on behalf of the applicant that since the revision application preferred by co-accused is also pending, she may also be given opportunity to present a case before the Court and the delay caused in filing revision application be condoned. 16. However, in view of the non-explanation of the delay as mentioned herein above, the prayer made by the learned advocate to condone the delay cannot be acceded. 17. I have also considered the judgment cited by the learned advocate at the Bar and there is no dispute about the ratio or proposition laid down this judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
