Tag Archives: #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE Rahul Bababhai Solanki Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On September 2, 2023

12123 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant accused has asked to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, through this application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that because of the nature of the allegations, a custodial interrogation is not required at this time. In addition, the applicant is accessible throughout the investigation and won’t resist justice. A knowledgeable attorney for the applicant claims that the current applicant is innocent and that he did not play any part. A knowledgeable attorney for the applicant claims that the current applicant was unjustly implicated in the crime. He is a BDS student, and it is claimed that he recently passed the test. Although it appears that the complainant’s husband had taken a loan from the present applicant’s father, the said amount was being demanded, and the incident in question occurred, it is claimed that the present applicant has no involvement in the matter and that whatever accusation is levelled against the applicant’s father is accepted. The applicant and his father were allegedly not complicit in the crime while they were passing a nearby field and the applicant spoke with the husband. Aside from this, the applicant is not accused of playing any other roles. He allegedly grabbed hold of the complainant’s husband.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The State has objected to the grant of anticipatory bail due to the nature and seriousness of the offence, according to Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is testifying on behalf of the respondent. The present applicant was present at the time the crime was committed, and the offence is one of a serious nature, according to the learned additional public prosecutor’s submission. Custodial interrogation is therefore necessary. She has therefore demanded that the current application be rejected. It is equally necessary for the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in accordance with the fundamental principles outlined in a wealth of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject after hearing the learned advocate for the parties and reading the investigation papers. It is well established that, among other circumstances, the considerations for a bail application should,It would be permissible for the Investigating Agency to request a police remand of the applicant in spite of this order from the competent Magistrate. The applicant must appear in person before the learned Magistrate on both the initial date of the application’s hearing and on all subsequent dates as the learned Magistrate may specify.

This would be sufficient to hold the defendant in judicial custody and consider the prosecution’s request for a police remand.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Steffi Desousa

18 Sep

No indication exists that the applicant is using dishonest or delaying tactics.- Gujarat High condones allows 51-day delay

TITLE Patel Girishbhai Hargovandas Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On September 2, 2023

31727 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

This application is made pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the 51-day delay in filing the criminal revision application.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that the current applicant is found guilty by and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court in an order dated 10.04.2023.

The applicant intends to contest both of the contested orders before this court through a criminal revision application, which has been delayed by 51 days. According to the argument, the application for a delay pardon was submitted because the applicant did not know about the order of conviction, was ignorant of the requirements for filing the current lawsuit, was unable to manage the necessary paperwork, and was experiencing post-operative complications. Delay results as a result.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The applicant has provided enough justification for the delay to be excused, taking into account the arguments made by the knowledgeable solicitors for the various parties. The Court’s main duties include resolving the parties’ conflict and advancing significant justice.

Limitation guidelines are not intended to trample on parties’ rights. The Court is aware that refusing to excuse the delay would result in a threshold dismissal of the case, and there is no presumption that the appellant intentionally caused the delay. Due to this, Section 5 of the Limitation Act’s definition of “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation in order to advance substantial justice. Even the justification given seems legitimate and honest.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

14 Sep

State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence- Gujarat High Court grants bail

TITLE – Khengarbhai Mafabhai Rabari Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On September 2, 2023

12125 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant accused has requested release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 114, 205, 419, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Penal Code, 1860 through this application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current applicant is a chartered accountant and has no connection to a crime. Just the audit of the Parvati Jadav Charitable Trust Hospital was completed by him. He claims that the current applicant is implicated in the offence as a result of an internal dispute among the trustees. It is claimed that the applicant failed to conduct a proper audit because he failed to properly prepare the audit report, visit the accounts, and verify the accounts. This failure led to misappropriation. Other than this, no role is assigned to the current applicant. As a result, he asks to approve the application because the applicant has carried out his professional duties with the utmost care and diligence and has no prior record of criminal offences.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is advocating for the defendant, Given the seriousness and nature of the offence, the state has opposed the granting of anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation is reportedly necessary. She therefore asked for the current application to be rejected.

It is equally necessary for the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the law after hearing the learned advocate for the parties and reviewing the investigation papers. with the fundamental guidelines established in numerous decisions of the Hon. Apex Court on the matter. The fact that, among other things circumstances, the considerations to be made when making an the request for bail it would be permissible for the Investigating Agency to request a police remand of the applicant in spite of this order from the competent Magistrate. The applicant must appear in person before the learned Magistrate on both the initial date of the application’s hearing and on all subsequent dates as the learned Magistrate may specify. This would be sufficient to hold the defendant in judicial custody and consider the prosecution’s request for a police remand. It is made clear that the applicant, even if remanded to police custody, shall be released immediately following the completion of such period of police remand, subject to other requirements of this anticipatory bail order.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

14 Sep

It has been stated that the Court must make sure that the child is not repeatedly called to testify in court, even under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act. – Gujarat High Court

TITLE – Mohammed Iliyas Idrishbhai Mevati Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On September 2, 2023

789 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant herein has filed the current Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in an effort to overturn the impugned order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 21, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in POCSO Case No. 179/2021, which dismissed the applicant’s application Exh.62 under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on May 9, 2023.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the application Exh.62, which was submitted to recall the witness and conduct further cross-examination. The witness was initially questioned, but some questions were not asked of her. Now that the advocate has changed, more questions must be asked of the witness, and in accordance with the fair trial rule, the current applicant must be given the chance to cross-examine the witness. The learned Special Judge made a mistake by failing to call the witness, the prosecutrix, and failed to give the current applicant, the accused, the right to a fair trial.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

To the contrary, the learned APP has vehemently opposed the current application and claimed that prosecutrix is a minor and has already been examined in the year 2022 and that such an exercise is not permitted in order to simply fill in the gaps in prosecutrix’s evidence.

The prosecutrix is a minor, so the court must take that into account when deciding whether or not to repeatedly recall her and subject her to trauma. The mere substitution of an advocate is not sufficient cause to call the witness. She therefore asked for the current application to be rejected. Given the aforementioned fact, it is against the law to simply recall witnesses in cases of non-compoundable offences in order to fill in any gaps in the evidence or simply to erase prior testimony because doing so would not serve the interests of justice. It has been stated that the Court must make sure that the child is not repeatedly called to testify in court, even under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act. Additionally, a change in the advocate is not a reason to recall the prosecutrix.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

14 Sep

A revisional proceeding appeal being pending would not be a reason to keep the present appeal pending. – Gujarat High Court

TITLE Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Versus Elecon EPC Projects Ltd

Decided On September 2, 2023

578 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Biren Vaishnav

INTRODUCTION-

The common order dated 24.02.2023 passed in the relevant appeals by which the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed has been challenged by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The assessee filed a return of income. On March 22, 2016, the assessment was finalised in accordance with Section 143(3) of the Act. The appellate authority provided relief following the assessee’s filing of an appeal. The Principal CIT-II in Vadodara issued an order setting aside the assessment order with a directive to verify the assessee’s claims after the revisional authority verified the records and found that the assessment orders were incorrect and detrimental to the interest of Revenue. On December 21, 2018, the Assessing Officer issued a new order of assessment under Section 143 r.w. Section 263 of the Act after verifying the information.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The assessee successfully appealed that assessment order before the CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal before the ITAT in Ahmedabad, where revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The order under Section 263 of the Act of 27.03.2018, the ensuing order of assessment under Section 143 r.w., and that the Act was being contested by the Tribunal, who did so in an order dated 13.07.2022. The Act’s Section 263 would no longer be valid. It would not be appropriate to keep this appeal pending if there was an appeal pending against the revisional proceedings. Even though the assessee requested that the Assessing Officer postpone the proceedings, the Assessing Officer went ahead and finalized the assessment. The Revenue did not ask to keep the appeal on hold or pending before the ITAT on the grounds, Court was already preoccupied with an appeal against the revision proceedings. In the absence of this, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the subsequent assessment order giving effect to the revision order is void ab initio once the Section 263 proceedings were set aside by themselves could not be faulted.

Written by- Steffi Desousa