AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—None is present for the Petitioner.
This Court has heard learned APP Shri Raval, who submitted under instructions of Mr. M.V. Patel, PSI, who is present in the Court that Criminal Case No. 761of 2004 arising from I.CR. No. 43 of 2004 is in fact heard and even submissions are over and it has now been kept for orders and judgment.
This Court has perused the order dated 15.2.2008passed by this Court (Coram: Ms. H.N. Devani, J.),wherein, it was observed as under:
Leave to amend the cause title.
The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to grant the petition, the trial in connection with Valod Police Station I-C.R. No. 43 of 2004 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat be expedited.
In view of the aforesaid, RULE returnable on 5th March,2008.
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat.
The Court has also perused the order dated 14.3.2011passed by this Court, wherein, it was observed that learned APP to verify the status of the matter pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.
I am of the view that when original request itself was for seeking appropriate orders for expeditious trial and the counsel has submitted that the appropriate orders be passed and in that view of the matter, Rule was issued. Now, the petition would not survive. The court need not go into the merits of the prayer as the matter initially had been admitted and rule was issued only on the request for Petitioner that some direction for expeditious hearing be issued, that being now not survive, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.
After the aforesaid order dictated and it was placed for signing, learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi appeared and submitted that as per his instructions, matter is not over and statement of witnesses are yet to be recorded. Therefore, he requested for expeditious disposal of the case. Be that as it may. This Court is of the view that submission of learned advocate for the Petitioner if it is found correct, than also, as the matter was originally admitted for appropriate direction, suffice to say that the Court may decide the matter expeditiously if still pending preferably within6 months from today. Liberty to approach in case of difficulties for all only for extension of time. Direct service permitted.