9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2011) 11 SCC 140 quoted the observations made by the High Court in that case expressing its views that common man must feel assured to get justice and observed as under: Let not the mighty and the rich think that courts are their paradise and in the legal arena they are the dominant players. 4. These judgments make one thing crystal clear that criminals do not hesitate approaching courts even by abusing the process of the court and some times succeed also. The instant case belongs to the same category. Petitioner feels that merely because he is a black-marketeer and succeeded in exploiting the helplessness of the poor people of the Society and is capable of engaging lawyers, he has a right to use, abuse and misuse the process of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court vide order dated 27.1.2012. Subsequent thereto this special leave petition has been filed on 29.2.2012 challenging the order dated 19.9.2011. No explanation has been furnished as why the present petition could not be filed during the pendency of the earlier SLP or both the orders could not be challenged simultaneously as the order impugned herein had been passed much prior to the filing of the first SLP on 13.10.2011, and Petitioner surrendered to serve out the sentence only on 13.1.2012. 8. The High Court dealt with various propositions of law while dealing with the averments raised on his behalf including the application of the provisions of Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure. which puts a complete embargo on the criminal co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court after approaching the Supreme Court as it would amount to abuse of process of the court. (See: Meghmala and Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383). The ratio of the aforesaid case has no application in the instant case as that was a matter dealing with civil cases. 11. Further reliance has been placed on behalf of the Petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Chhanni v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 396, wherein the court itself held as under: 9. The High Court is justified in its view that there is no provision for modification of the judgment. Further direction has been issued by this Court to re-consider the case exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the aforesaid j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court held that wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law. 17. Even otherwise, the issue as to whether benefit of the Act 1958 or Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure. can be granted to the Petitioner is no more res integra. In Issar Das v. The State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 1295, this Court dealt with the case under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act observing that adulteration of food is a menace to public health and the statute had been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evils and for ensuring purity in the articles of food. The Legislat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
