STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUBHAI MADHUBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-State has moved this application for condonation of delay of three days in preferring Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 1996 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Nadiad on 28th February 1996 in Criminal Case No. 5943 of 1990. Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the opponents herein of the offences punishable under Secs. 422 and 448 read with S.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Opponent No. 1 was present. Opponent No. 2 is his wife. He prayed for assistance from an Advocate to be appointed by this Court. I tried to ascertain from learned Advocate Shri C. H. Vora present in the Court room whether or not it would be possible for him to assist this Court on behalf of the opponents in this case. On his showing willingness, learned Advocate Shri Vora has been appointed to assist this Court in this case for the opponents.

(3.) . The delay in preferring the appeal in question is only of three days. Learned Advocate Shri Vora for the opponents has submitted that the delay in this case has occurred on account of lethargy shown by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State Government in the trial Court, and as such the delay need not be condoned as it would amount to putting premium on such lethargy. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Mehta has submitted that no litigant should be let down on account of default, inaction or omission on the part of his Lawyer and the State Government as a litigant need not be let down by its Lawyer in the form of the concerned Public Prosecutor.