TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 5185 days in filing restoration application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 3403 of 2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1990. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant, Mahesh Kantilal Soni, who is the original accused in criminal case No. 1208 of 1985 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Joint Court), Ahmedabad (Rural), who came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default S.I. for six months by judgment and order dated 25-10-1988. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1988 against the order of conviction before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the submission made in the application, the learned advocate by letter dated 10-10-1995 written to the husband of the applicant had stated therein that revision application was pending before the Court and listed for final hearing on the Board. 5. Thus, the applicant was having bona fide impression that revision application was not heard and disposed of. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant was suffering from cancer and was required hospitalisation for taking urgent treatment. He ultimately expired on 2-3-1996 at M.P. Shah Cancer Hospital, Ahmedabad. The husband of the applicant never knew that the revision application was dismissed for default on account of the non removal of office objections, and the applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n preferring the application. The learned advocate has placed reliance on following judgments, they are as under : (1) In the case of Collector, Land Acquistion, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Other reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). (2) In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. Reported in 1996 (5) Supreme 75. (3) In the case of Chhaga Ramabhai and Others v. Heirs of Chhotabhai and Another reported in 1994 (1) G.L.H. 16. (4) In the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Legal Heirs of Ismali H. Ranza & Ors. Reported in 1999 (2) GCD 1290 (Guj.). (5) In the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, it is stated therein that the order was passed on 9-11-1993 by the Court for removing the office objections and on 13-12-1995, the bail bonds of the applicant was cancelled. It is further stated in paragraph No. 3 that the learned advocate wrote letter dated 10-10-1993; wherein, he stated that revision application was pending before the High Court but the aforesaid fact has not been properly explained by the learned advocate while preferring the application for restoration. The learned advocate further submitted that the applicant has also not explained the delay from 13-12-1995 by which the bail bonds of the applicant was cancelled. Pendency of the revision application of the co-accused would have no consequence if the applicant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fault S.I. of 6 months by judgment and order dated 25-10-1988. He, thereafter, preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1988 which was dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 14-6-1990. Being aggrived by the aforesaid order the husband of the applicant preferred Criminal Revision application No. 191 of 1990 before this Court and the same was admitted by order dated 5-9-1990 and the husband of the applicant was directed to be enlarge on bail. At the time of the admission of the revision application, the Court directed the advocate of the applicant to remove office objections in the matter, failing which, the matter would stand dismissed for default. However, the learned advocate for the applicant could not remove the office objections i....