i K Dave Vs. State of Gujarat and 2

indian penal code (ipc) - section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- learned counsel for the appellant sahnawaz contends that none of the appellants was arrested on the spot. none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the appellant. appellant has not been identified at any point of time. pw5, pw6 and pw10 have deposed about the incident. pw3 and pw4 have specifically identified the accused persons in the court. this witness has further identified appellant ashraf and shahnawaz in the court correctly. in regard to the identity of the accused persons pw3 and pw4 have identified the appellants herein as the persons who had entered the shop on 8th july 1999. appellants were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under section 397 ipc. .....} function loadsearchhighlight() { var chkparamc = "txtsearch" if (chkparamc == "txtsearch") { searchhighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } print sca/8789/1994 2/2 orderinthe high court of gujarat at ahmedabadspecialcivil application no. 8789 of 1994=========================================================ik dave - petitioner(s)versusstateof gujarat & 2 - respondent(s)=========================================================appearance:mrrc pathak forpetitioner(s) : 1,mr nj shah, ld.asst.government pleader forrespondent(s) : 1,mr hs munshaw for respondent(s) : 2,ruleserved for respondent(s) :3,=========================================================coram : honourable mr.justice ks jhaveridate: 03/10/2011oralorderwhen present petition came up for hearing on 17th june 2010, this court passed the following order :“mr.pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, requests for time toproduce on record the affidavit-in-rejoinder. itmay be noted that earlier also, time was granted to mr. pathak toproduce on record the same. however, even today, time is sought onthe same ground. inview of the above, s.o to 09.07.2010, on condition thatan amount of rs.250/- is deposited with the gujarat high courtadvocates' law library before the next date of hearing and thereceipt thereof is produced on record of this court.”thereafter, again on 13th december 2010, this court passed the following order :“noneappears for the petitioner when the matter is called out for thesecond time. liston 24.03.2011.”today also when the matter was called out, mr.r.c. pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner, is neither present nor has he made any mentioning. hence, the present petition stands dismissed for default. rule is discharged with no order as to costs.(k.s.jhaveri, j)aakar     top