1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2015
  6. /
  7. January

Ramabhai Bhimabhai Bharvad vs State Of Gujarat

High Court Of Gujarat|07 April, 2015
Applicant-original accused has by filing the present Revision Application prayed to set aside order dated 23rd September, 2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.209 of 2014. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for transfer of Sessions Case No.31 of 2012 to other Court under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It appears that original complainant had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18392 of 2014 in the present main Revision Application. He was seeking his impleadment in the Revision Application by relying on Section 401(2) of the Code. The said Criminal Miscellaneous Application came to be decided Page 1 of 3 R/CR.RA/593/2014 ORDER by this Court as per order dated 27th November, 2014 and the prayer for impleadment at the instance of complainant was held to be not maintainable and not granted. The application came to be rejected.
3. It appears further from the papers accompanying the record of the matter that against the said order dated 27th November, 2014 passed in the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.337 of 2015 was preferred before the Apex Court. The said Special Leave to Appeal came to be disposed of on 24th February, 2015.
3.1 The order of the Apex Court inter alia held and stated as under.
"This Court in SLP (Crl.) No.4592 of 2013 on 08.09.2014, while declining to interfere with the order granting bail, had passed the following order :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
However, we direct the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the trial within a period of four months hence. The disposal of the trial shall be intimated to the Registry of this Court."
Thereafter, the trial proceeded and at that juncture, the 1st respondent herein, who is the co-accused in Sessions Case No.3 of 2012, approached the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Revision Application No.593 of 2014 praying for transfer of the case from the learned trial Judge who is in session of the trial to another trial Judge on many a ground. In course of hearing, it is submitted by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, that the fundamental grievance of the petitioner is that the right to cross-examine four witnesses, namely, Dr.Shailesh Bhuva, Dr. Kiran Panchal, Jayantibhai Pujara and Dharmendra Jadeja has been foreclosed.
In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge, on an application being filed under Section 311 of the Page 2 of 3 R/CR.RA/593/2014 ORDER Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of one week hence, shall recall the said four witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination by the respondent. The cross-examination shall continue in accordance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Judge thereafter shall proceed by examining the other witnesses and shall conclude the trial by the end of July 2015. As we have passed the above directions, the Criminal Revision Application No.593 of 2014 pending in the Gujarat High Court is deemed to have been dismissed. Needless to say, once the revision application stands dismissed by virtue of our order, the prayer for impleadment by the present petition in the revision becomes infructuous and we so hold.
The learned trial Judge shall proceed in accordance with law and with the utmost objectivity. The counsel for the prosecution as well as the defence shall fully cooperate with the trial, for it is the duty of the counsel appearing for the parties to assist the court and to see that the trial is properly conducted.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."
3.2 Thus in the aforesaid order, the Apex Court observed that Criminal Revision Application No.593 of 2014 pending in this Court is deemed to have been dismissed.
4. This Revision Application stands accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.
5. Notice is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.