Prajapati Bharatbhai Ishwarbha and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav.1. the present application has been preferred for condo nation of delay of 462 days in preferring appeal against the order passed by the learned single judge of this court in special civil application no.6582 of 1999.2. we have heard mr.suthar for mr. n.k.majmudar on the aspects of condo nation of delay as well as on merits of the letters patent appeal.3. as such, if the grounds stated in the application for condo nation of delay are considered as it is, we find that the delay is not sufficiently explained, and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.4. however, with a view to see that the merits of the matter does not get frustrated, we have heard mr. suthar for mr. majmudar on the merits of the letters patent appeal. 5. it appears from the order of the learned single judge, which is impugned in the letters patent appeal, that the learned single judge has relied upon the order passed by the another learned single judge of this court in special civil application no. 9262 of 1994 on 16.06.2008. 6. learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that against the order dated 16.06.2008 in special civil application no. 9262 of 1994, the letters patent appeal was preferred and the said letters patent appeal no. 1298 of 2008 has been dismissed with the other group of matters by the division bench of this court vide order dated 18.11.2009 and the said order of the learned single judge in special civil application no. 9262 of 1994 has been confirmed.7. in above view of the matter, it appears to us that when the judgement and order of the learned single judge in special civil application no. 9262 of 1994, which is considered as a basis by the learned single judge in the impugned order, has been confirmed in the proceedings of letters patent appeal no. 1298 of 2008, the issue can be said as covered by the decision of the letters patent appeal bench and, hence, it can be said that there is no merit in maintaining the letters patent appeal also.8. in view of the aforesaid, we find that no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay and examining the letters patent appeal on merits. hence, the application for condo nation of delay is dismissed.9. in view of the order passed in the application for condo nation of delay, letters patent appeal (stamp) no. 1774 of 2010 would also not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
1. The present application has been preferred for condo nation of delay of 462 days in preferring appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6582 of 1999.

2. We have heard Mr.Suthar for Mr. N.K.Majmudar on the aspects of condo nation of delay as well as on merits of the letters patent appeal.

3. As such, if the grounds stated in the application for condo nation of delay are considered as it is, we find that the delay is not sufficiently explained, and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.

4. However, with a view to see that the merits of the matter does not get frustrated, we have heard Mr. Suthar for Mr. Majmudar on the merits of the letters patent appeal.

5. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the letters patent appeal, that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order passed by the another learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9262 of 1994 on 16.06.2008.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that against the order dated 16.06.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 9262 of 1994, the letters patent appeal was preferred and the said Letters Patent Appeal No. 1298 of 2008 has been dismissed with the other group of matters by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2009 and the said order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9262 of 1994 has been confirmed.

7. In above view of the matter, it appears to us that when the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9262 of 1994, which is considered as a basis by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, has been confirmed in the proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1298 of 2008, the issue can be said as covered by the decision of the letters patent appeal Bench and, hence, it can be said that there is no merit in maintaining the letters patent appeal also.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we find that no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay and examining the letters patent appeal on merits. Hence, the application for condo nation of delay is dismissed.

9. In view of the order passed in the application for condo nation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 1774 of 2010 would also not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.