CR.A/958/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 958 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= CHANDRIKABEN RATILAL PRAJAPATI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BS PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, Mr I M Pandya, , Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) : 1, MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for Opponent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 18/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-original complainant has filed Revision Application against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First CR.A/958/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.4207 of 1997 dated 30.9.1999 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the said criminal case. The said Criminal Revision Application No. 624 of 1999 was permitted to be converted into Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2007 vide order dated 11.7.2007. By way of this Appeal, the present appellant challenges the aforesaid order. Heard the learned advocate for the parties and the learned APP for opponent No.1. The appeal is admitted. 2. This court has gone through the entire rojkam as well as the “no instructions” pursis filed by the advocate of the complainant. No doubt, the complainant has not remained present before the court when the matter was called out. It seems that the RPAD Notice issued through the advocate of the complainant was not served on the complainant and it was returned with an endorsement “not found”. This shows that the complainant was not present at the residence when the Notice was sent. Without going into this fact, the trial court has, in haste, passed the order. Had the complainant been informed by his advocate, certainly she would have been present before the court. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this court, the matter has to be decided on merits and it should not be thrown out on technical grounds. CR.A/958/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT 3. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to fix the matter on day-to-day basis for conducting the trial. The complainant will remain present on each date of hearing and if the complainant will not remain present, the trial court will pass appropriate order in her absence. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp