GANGARAM L BHANUSHALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. N.L. Ramnani for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No. 1 -State. As the revision is pending since the year 2009, there is no option but to decide it finally.

(2.) THE record shows disturbing history inasmuch as appeal was initially filed in the month of March, 2009 and, ultimately, it was dismissed for default in the month of December, 2009. Thereafter, pursuant to order dated 15.12.2009 i.e. just within a week, when main revision application is restored to the file by an order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13999 of 2009, practically, original set of revision must be available with the Registry and should be listed for further hearing at the earliest. However, it seems that right from 9.12.2009, no steps have been taken and it seems that only on 16.7.2013, some papers were collected by the Registry probably from some unknown source, since there is no clarity on record about the source of such documents when file was reconstructed for listing it before the Court. Such fact can be gathered from the first page/memo/covering pager of the Criminal Department whereby it can be confirmed that learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala has filed some documents on 16.7.2013 and, thereafter, matter was listed on 17.7.2013 before the Court. From 17.7.2013 till 8.8.2013, when matter was taken up for hearing, it was found that previous orders and papers of the revision were not available in the file. Some directions were given to re -construct the file on 8.10.2013, 27.3.2014, 4.4.2014, 28.4.2014 and 6.5.2014. Pursuant to such directions, office has submitted its report regarding non -availability of original record of main revision application and pursuant to direction to reconstruct the file by placing papers, which are not available on record, now, the file has been re -constructed.

(3.) COMING to the merits of the case, it is to be recollected that petitioners are original accused; whereas respondent No. 2 is original complainant. They are referred in the same status hereinafter.