CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

State of Gujarat vs Manhor Gyanu Baudh

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 27 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 GUJ CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
Z.K. Saiyed, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 377 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 379
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The appellant-State has filed the present appeal u/s 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent-original accused vide order dated 23rd October 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway), Surat, in Criminal Case No. 1665 of 1989.

2.

Heard Mr. H.H. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State.

3.

Mr. Parikh has contended that the present respondent-original accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway), Surat for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. However, it was clarified that sentence imposed upon the present respondent-original accused in Criminal Case Nos. 1666 of 1989, 1667 of 1989 and Criminal Case No. 3820 of 1991 shall run concurrently.

4 .I have perused papers and order passed by the learned Magistrate. Looking to the papers produced before me it appears that the case was registered against the present respondent in the year 1989. By order dated 23rd October 1991 the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the present respondent-original accused and Notice was issued in the year 1992 against the present respondent as per the order dated 16th July 1992 passed by this Court.

5.

It also appears that since the date of the issuance of notice, i.e. in the year 1992, appellant-State was unable to serve the notice upon the respondent. Even today also, Mr. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is unable to convince this Court as to why notice was not served upon the respondent. Non-service of notice upon the respondent shows that State is not interested in the result of this Appeal.

6.

Hence, looking to the papers produced before me as well as in view of the fact that after issuance of notice in the year 1992, State is unable to serve the notice to the respondent-original accused, I am of the opinion that present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.