MAHENDRA JIVRAJBHAI KANUNGO....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ==================================== Appearance:
MR DHRUV K DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed May 04 04:19:10 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/427/2016 ORDER CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Date : 02/05/2016 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Dhruv K. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State in the present applications. Though served, the respondent No. 2 has put in no appearance. The learned advocate for the applicant states that the very orders, challenged in the present revisions applications, have also been challenged by the respondent No. 2 herein by filing the revision applications, which are seven in number.
2. Present applications, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, have been filed for condonation of delay of 11 days, caused in preferring the criminal revision applications.
3. The averments made in the present applications on oath, appear to have not been controverted by the otherside. The delay of 11 days, caused in filing the revision applications, has been sufficiently and satisfactorily explained in the applications. Hence, these applications are allowed and the delay caused in filing the revision applications, as aforesaid, is condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each application.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed May 04 04:19:10 IST 2016