R/CR.

RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO.490 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 613 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 614 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 616 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.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 ?
Whether this case in!ol!es a substantial "uestion of law as
to the interpretation of the #onstitution of $ndia% 1&'( or any
order made thereunder ?
' Whether it is to be circulated to the ci!il judge ?
================================================================
DILIPBHAI JIVABHAI KATARIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATI, SR.ADVOCATE with MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HL JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
#)R*+, HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Page 1 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 8/09/2014
COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
All these four applications are on the same issue and against same
impugned order and, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Practically, for all the applicants only one set of arguments have
been advanced by learned senior counsel Mr.N.D.Nanavati. Whereas, for
private respondents, since four revision applications are there, different
senior counsels have ithout overlapping their submissions submitted
different issues and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.!.".#ani has argued on
behalf of the $tate. %he impugned order in all the revision applications is
dated 2&.&'.2&() belo *+h., in -riminal Appeal No.22 of 2&() by
$essions #udge, Porbandar. $uch application as filed by appellant being
original accused No.. in such appeal, u/s.),0 of the -r.P.-. to stay his
conviction in -riminal -ase No.((21, of 2&&2 and -riminal -ase
No.((' of 2&&, confirmed by the -hief #udicial Magistrate, Porbandar.
%he appellant before the $essions -ourt is challenging such conviction
and, therefore, hen sentence is stayed by granting bail, the appellant has
also prayed for staying the order of conviction.
). At the outset, learned senior counsel Mr.N.D.Nanavati has fairly
concealed and admitted that, in fact, though the impugned order is order
hereby conviction of the respondent No.2 herein has been stayed, their
grievance is not on merits of such order inasmuch as even in absence of
an application at *+h., and impugned order, practically, pursuant to the
provisions of $ection ),0 of -r.P.-., hen -riminal Appeal is preferred
in time and considering provision of $ub3$ection 4.5 of $ection , of the
6epresentation of the Peoples Act, pursuant to the judgment of !on7ble
$upreme -ourt, declaring such $ub3$ection as vires prospectively ith
effect from (&.'.2&() only in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India
Page 2 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.490 of 00!" the conviction of respondent No.2
is automatically stayed and, therefore, irrespective of application at *+h.,
and impugned order and even after challenge of such impugned order in
this revision application, the benefit available to respondent No.2 cannot
come to an end hereby he is protected as per provision of $ub3$ection
4.5 of $ection , of 6epresentation of the Peoples Act.
.. %hough the fact are 8non to all, it ould be appropriate to
recollect that respondent No.2 is at present sitting M.".A and Minister of
the $tate of 9ujarat. !oever, pursuant to :;6 No.,) of 2&&2 dated
1.(&.2&&2 u/ss...', )'0 and ((. of the ;P-, a chargesheet as filed
against him and in -riminal -ase No.((' of 2&&, initiated from such :;6
and chargesheet, ultimately, he as convicted by the -.#.M., Porbandar.
;n her judgment dated (1.2.2&(), -.#.M., Porbandar had convicted
respondent No.2 herein ith three other accused and aarded
imprisonment of three years and penalty of 6s.1&&&/3 for committing the
offence u/s. )'0 of the ;P-. %he hue and cry of the petitioners are
therefore to the effect that only because respondent No.2 is sitting M.".A
and Minister of the $tate, though he has committed an offence as
aforesaid, and though he is convicted by the competent -ourt, the
$essions -ourt has openly helped accused No.2 in staying his conviction
by alloing his application at *+h., and that $tate being prosecuting
agency instead of opposing such application, openly supported the
accused in getting his application alloed before the $essions -ourt. ;t is
further alleged that same attitude has been continued in the present
revision application hen $tate is instead of supporting petitioners,
supports respondent No.2 .
1. !oever, unfortunately, hen learned senior counsel
Mr.N.D.Nanavati has fairly admitted that there ould be no change in
circumstance or adverse effect to the respondent No.2 irrespective of
impugned order or this revision, considering the fact that pursuant to $ub3
Page 3 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
$ection 4.5 of $ection , of the 6epresentation of the Peoples Act, hen
conviction of respondent No.2 does not dis<ualify him to be a member of
legislative assembly and thereby he can continue on the post of Minister=
no, practically, this marathon e+ercise by all the four petitioners in all
these revision applications are nothing but an attempt to ma8e a mountain
of a molehill and to get cheap publicity so as to continuously argue in
public forum that $tate 9overnment has continued the person as a
minister and M.".A though he is convicted by the competent -ourt.
2. %herefore, practically, no this issue and argument both on the
point of lo#$s standi of the petitioners as ell as suspension of sentence,
has become academic in nature and, practically, may not re<uire to be
discussed at length, since there is nothing adverse and thereby illegal or
arbitrary or there is no perverseness in the impugned order. %hereby,
simple order in all these revision applications ould be nothing, but its
rejection.
'. !oever, unfortunately and disturbingly, the entire submission by
the petitioners and target is judicial process and judiciary at large, more
particularly, Presiding >fficer of the $essions -ourt, ho has passed the
impugned order as ell as the $tate machinery in general and in
particular the Public Prosecutor before the $essions -ourt and before this
-ourt. As aforesaid, practically, hen impugned order is otherise not
illegal or perverse, then as argued by learned senior counsel
Mr.N.D.Nanavati,it is challenged only because of alleged irregularity on
the part of the $essions -ourt as ell as Public Prosecutor by petitioners
ho are otherise not party before the $essions -ourt in the appeal
here such impugned order is passed. %herefore, respondents are right in
objecting to entertain such revision on the issue of lo#$s standi of the
petitioners. %hough much is argued on the issue by both the sides and
though both the sides have cited so many cases, ultimately, it is nothing
but futile e+ercise by petitioners inasmuch as if at all as argued by them,
Page 4 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
they ant to emphasi?e on the practice folloed by the $essions -ourt
and the $tate as prosecuting agency through their prosecutors, they ould
have preferred appropriate litigation, may be P;", if la and rule so
permit. %herefore, ; do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned
order in any manner. !oever, for coming to such conclusion and to
anser the issues raised by the petitioners, there is no option but to verify
certain details and to determine the relevant issues.
,. @nfortunately, on factual aspect also, the basic facts are certainly
against the petitioners, ho are not only re<uired to be condemned, but
needs to be arned from initiating any such litigation in future either for
personal vengeance or for political benefit or for cheap publicity or for
some ulterior motive, ; have reason to say so considering the factual
details.

0. ;f e peruse the original :;6 dated 1.(&.2&&2, it becomes clear that
such :;6 is filed by one @meshbhai ;sharbhai Ahavsar as Asst.Manager
of $aurashtra -hemicals "td., Porbandar. ;n his complaint, he has
specifically stated that he is serving as Assistant Manager in $aurashtra
-hemicals "td. since (( years and that his company has ac<uired certain
sites in Aoriya area of Porbandar %alu8a on lease, hich is admeasuring
in all )(& acres and that they are paying rent to the 9overnment and their
company has to e+tract limestone from such land, but they have not
started to e+tract limestone and have yet not assigned the contract for
such e+traction. ;t is further stated that on 1.(&.2&&2, they came to 8no,
hen they inspected the land, that some limestone have been stolen by
e+traction from such land and on in<uiry from the persons available at the
place, they came to 8no that respondent No.2 and one other person
against hom chargesheet and criminal case has been initiated, are
illegally e+tracting limestone for last five years and sending such
limestone to %A%A company. ;t is his say that ho much limestone has
been stolen and of ho much amount, ould be disclosed after ma8ing
Page 5 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
survey. %herefore, he has lodged a complaint against such persons for
stealing limestone from the land, hich as leased to them. !oever, so
far as 2& acres land is concerned, it is his case that it as obtained by his
company from one "a+manbhai Aagat. %hough the statement is not clear
and vague, as it transpires that initially the lease as in the name of
"a+manbhai Aagat, and in (00., probably, it as sub3leased to
$aurashtra -hemicals "td. %he bare perusal and reading of complaint
ma8es it very much clear that complaint is basically u/s.)'0 regarding
e+traction and theft of limestone from the property hich is leased in
favour of $aurashtra -hemicals "td. and, therefore, it is a private
complaint by a private person for his property ith allegation that it has
been stolen and that too ith such a vague statement in the complaint that
such e+traction or8 as continued or carried out for last five years. >ne
more surprising statement is to the effect that complainant as aare
about the fact that such allegedly stolen limestone as going to %A%A
factory, then, practically, it is a dispute beteen to business houses,
namely, $aurashtra -hemicals "td. And %ata :actory in surrounding area
and more particularly even after getting the lease, if $aurashtra -hemicals
"td. has never bothered either to secure the boundaries of lease property
or to e+tract the re<uisite material being limestone from the land,
practically, this is nothing, but a dispute beteen to limited companies.
%hough during investigation, police has tried to find out the ay and
means and method of transporting limestone through the land in <uestion
to %ata -hemicals "td., Mithapur, it seems that police has not bothered to
in<uire from %ata -hemicals "td. and to join anybody from such
company as accused hen they have accepted or purchased such
limestone from some person. No doubt, all such scrutiny and observation
are not re<uired at this stage hen -riminal Appeal is pending before the
competent -ourt, its reference is necessary for the simple reason to
understand that this is not a case against the public property for hich
petitioners are ma8ing hue and cry that a person, ho has committed theft
Page 6 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
of public property, is being supported by the -ourt and the $tate
machinery. Needless to say that if respondent No.2 has committed even a
small offence or even a theft of small amount, if there is sufficient
evidence against him, he ould certainly be convicted and to that e+tent,
the la ill ta8e its on course.
(&. !oever, in vie of such bac8ground, the real <uestion is about
the lo#$s standi of the present petitioners, ho are nohere connected
either ith limestone or ith the complaint or ith the property in any
manner hatsoever. !oever, as submitted and argued at bar, it seems
that they are either supported or sponsored by some political party or
some political rival of respondent No.2. ;t is submitted by respondent
No.2 that because the candidate of other parties have lost the elections
and hen respondent No.2 as selected as minister, the rival group is
trying to harass/disturb and create a media trial and publicity against him
by such litigation. ;t seems that there is some substance in such
submission. !oever, at present, e do not have to decide such issues
and, therefore, confirming that the issue regarding lo#$s standi of present
petitioner is also one of the basic issue in this revision application, it is
made clear that hatever is observed herein above on factual aspect are
only for a limited purpose to decide the of such issue of lo#$s standi and
it shall in no ay affect the pending appeal against conviction and that
trial -ourt is certainly free to decide the appeal purely on its on merits
in accordance ith la i.e. relying upon the material available on record.
((. :or above discussion and observation, it ould be appropriate to
refer and recollect certain material and pleadings from the record. ;t is to
be recollected here that all the respondents are in no ay connected either
ith the complainant or even ith the respondent No.2 since none of
them are residing at Porbandar, but most of them are residing in
Ahmedabad. Whereas, one Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya, the petitioner in
-riminal 6evision Application No..0& of 2&() is residing at Amreli. ;t is
Page 7 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
therefore relevant to recollect the averments in pleading of such revision
applications herein though all the petitioners are practically same in
verbatim, barring personal details, in paragraph 2) of the applications all
the petitioners have stated that since the respondent No.2 is a poerful
person having political patronage, it is possible that respondent No.2 may
harass Dilipbhai #ivabhait Batariya to stop pursuing the case against the
respondent No.2 and that Mr.Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya may also meet
ith the same fate of Mr.Ahagubhai Devani and that Mr.Dilipbhai
#ivabhai Batariya may also be forced to bac8 out and stop pursuing the
case against respondent No.2 and, therefore, petitioner has filed the
present -riminal 6evision Application. !oever, unfortunately, none of
these applications have clarified and disclosed that ho they are
concerned ith Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya, ho is residing at Amreli
and rest of the petitioners are residing in Ahmedabad.
(2. %herefore, it is certain that in fact present revision applications are
not against the $tate, Public Prosecutor as ell as the concerned $essions
-ourt only, but it is mainly to help Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya. ;f at all,
there is some disturbance beteen Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya and
respondent No.2, it can be ta8en care of in appropriate proceedings
against respondent No.2 including proper complaint, but in any case, such
litigations are not arranted and it certainly re<uires to be condemned to
that e+tent. No, it is certain that present petitioners do not have a lo#$s
standi. %herefore, several citations hich are referred by both the sides
are though listed herein belo, they are not re<uired to be discussed in
detail inasmuch as hen it has been certain and clear that the present
petitioners have no lo#$s standi. !oever, on perusal of all such
judgments, it becomes clear that even on facts and legal merits, the
citations referred by the respondents are more irrelevant to the present
case than the citations referred by the petitioners and, therefore, relying
upon the citations referred by the respondents, no it becomes clear that
Page 8 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
there is no lo#$s standi to the petitioners in filing such a petition. Aut, so
far as present petitions are concerned, it becomes clear and obvious that
petitioners do not have lo#$s standi, more particularly, hen complaint is
a private complaint u/s.)'0 of the ;P- for hich complainant is very
much there to agitate and initiate any such issue. *ven at the cost of
repetition, it is to be recollected that by filing such petitions, practically,
petitioners are trying to get political mileage hen such issue is
repeatedly being raised that particular 9overnment is continuing the
M.".A as a Minister though he is convicted by the -ourt. Needless to say
that irrespective the present legal position after the judgment in "ily
%homas 4supra5 hen present respondent is not affected by such
judgment, there is no reason to find fault ith the impugned order only
because of the position of respondent No.2.
(). Petitioners have relied upon folloing decisionsC3
(. 42&&051 $-- ',' 3 $anjay Dutt Ds. $tate of Maharashtra
through -A; Aombay.
2. 4(0,.52 $-- 1&& 3 A.6. Antulay Ds. 6.$.. Naya8.
). 4(0,'5 ( $-- 2,, 3 $heonandan Pasan v. $tate of. Aihar E
>rs.
.. -riminal Appeal No.(1(1 of 2&(. 4Arising out of $.".P.
4-riminal5 No.121. of 2&(. -6"MP No.,(0( of 2&(.5 F
$hyam Narain Pandey Ds. $tate of @.P.
(.. As against that respondents are relying upon folloing decisionsC3
(. A;6 (022 $- 0(( F %ha8ur 6am Ds. $tate of Aihar.
2. A;6 (0,, $- 022 F @smanbhai Daoodbhai Memon Ds.
$tate of 9ujarat.
). 42&(&5(2 $-- 100 F National -ommission of Women Ds.
$tate of Delhi.
.. 42&&.5) $-- ).0 F Asho8 Bumar Pandey Ds. $tate of W.A.
1. 4(00,5' $-- ('' F Panchhi and >rs. Ds. $tate of @.P.
2. 4(0025. $-- 21) F $imranjit $ingh Mann Ds. @nion of
;ndia E Anr.
'. 4(0025. $-- 222 F Baramjeet $ingh Ds. @nion of ;ndia.
Page 9 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
,. 4(00(5) $-- '12 F #anata Dal Ds. !.$.-hodhary E >rs.
0. 42&()5' $-- ',0 F Mohit Alias $onu E Anr. Ds. $tate of
@ttar Pradesh E Anr.
(&. 4(0''5. $-- ()' F Amar Nath E >rs. Ds. $tate of !aryana
E Anr.
((. 42&&252 $-- 2() F 6ajiv 6anjan $ingh G"alan7 4D;;;5 Ds.
@nion of ;ndia E >rs.
(2. 42&&&5( $-- 2'2 F #ogendra Naha8 E >rs. Ds. $tate of
>rissa E >rs.
(). 42&()52 $-- )0, F Bishore $amrite Ds. $tate of @.P. E
>rs.
(.. A;6 (0,, $- 022 F @smanbhai Daoodbhai Memon E >rs.
Ds. $tate of 9ujarat.
(1. "earned Public Prosecutor has relied upon folloing citationsC3
(. 42&(&5(2 $-- 100 F National -ommission for Women Ds.
$tate of Delhi.
2. A;6 (00) $- 2,& 3 $imranjit $ingh Mann v. @nion of ;ndia.
). A;6 2&&( $- (')0 3 Dinoy Bumar v. $tate of @.P.
.. A;6 2&(( $- (1,, 3 Milind $hripad -handur8ar v. Balim
M. Bhan and Anr.
1. #udgment in the case of -riminal Misc.Application
No.(&.12 of 2&(. ith -riminal Appeal No.0(& of 2&() of
9ujarat !igh -ourt dated (.(&.2&().
(2. !oever, as aforesaid, those citations on the issue of lo#$s standi
are not re<uired to be e+plained in detail since on factual details itself,
there is a clarity that petitioners do not have lo#$s standi to file such a
revision application.
('. %herefore, there is no no necessity to discuss the further
arguments and allegation regarding practice being folloed by the
$essions -ourt or by the Public Prosecutor. %o avoid a controversy in
future, if e consider the provision of $ection ),0 regarding suspension
of sentence pending appeal and releasing the appeal on bail, respondents
are right hen they argue that there is no need to hear the Public
Prosecutor in such a case before passing any order u/s.),0 and, therefore,
Page 10 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
entire set of allegations by the petitioners regarding Public Prosecutor
before the $essions -ourt is unsustainable. :or the purpose, it ould be
appropriate to recollect the provision of $ub3$ection 4(5 of $ection ),0,
hich reads as underC3
389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on
bail.
4(5 Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate -ourt may, for
reasons to be recorded by it in riting, order that the e+ecution of the sentence
or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he
be released on bail, or on his on bond.
Provided that the Appellate -ourt shall, before releasing on bail or on his
on bond a convicted person ho is convicted of an offence punishable ith
death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten
years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for shoing cause in
riting against such releaseC
Provided further that in cases here a convicted person is released on bail it
shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the
cancellation of the bail.
(,. %he bare reading of the proviso to $ub3section 4(5, hich is
inserted .e.f. 2).2.2&&2, ma8es it clear that no it is mandatory to give
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for shoing cause before releasing
on bail a convict person, ho is convicted of offence punishable ith
death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than (&
years. When such proviso is added, there is reason to believe that it is not
compulsory for the -ourt to call upon the Public Prosecutor hile
releasing the person on bail if sentence is for less than (& years, more
particularly, hen the second proviso confirms that in case hen a
convict person is released on bail, it shall be open for the Public
Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of bail. ;t is obvious
that $ection ),0 is dealing ith the suspension of sentence as ell as
releasing the appellant on bail and, therefore, such condition ould be
applicable in both the cases. $uch observation is necessary at this stage
only because of the repeated arguments by the petitioners, referring the
Page 11 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
impugned judgment that Public Prosecutor has not argued anything
before the trial -ourt to oppose such an application. $urprisingly, hen
petitioners have already admitted that even otherise application at *+h.,
is not necessary and that respondent No.2 is otherise getting benefit of
suspension of his sentence because of provision of $ub3section 4.5 of
$ection , of 6epresentation of Peoples Act, there is no reason for the
prosecutor before the trial -ourt to oppose such an application. !oever,
it cannot be ignored that the trial -ourt has recorded in one sentence that
he has heard learned D.9.P for the respondent F $tate and perused the
record of the loer -ourt. %herefore, it cannot be said that District
9overnment Pleader has not opposed the application, hich otherise
cannot be opposed as recorded herein above. %herefore, such an argument
and attempt to loer don the morale of the $essions -ourt is seems to
be nothing but an attempt to commit the contempt of -ourt, more
particularly coupled ith such arguments hen petitioners have alleged
against the attitude of the concerned #udicial >fficer ith concerned
District 9overnment Pleader and also tried to get the -riminal Appeal
transferred from the -ourt of concerned #udicial >fficer.
(0. ; have perused the impugned order and ; do not find any illegality,
irregularity, arbitrariness or perverseness in such an order, though learned
senior counsel Mr.N.D.Nanavati tried to emphasi?e that $essions #udge
has ta8en @3turn after e+plaining the provision of la in paragraph ., but
alloed the application. @nfortunately, this is nothing but an attempt to
ta8e advantage of approbate and reprobate both i.e. on one hand, hen it
is categorically and fairly admitted that irrespective of application and
order at *+h., and impugned order, the respondent No.2 certainly gets the
benefit of $ub3section . of $ection , of 6epresentation of Peoples Act
and thereby his position ould not change even in absence of such
application and on the other hand, petitioners find fault ith the
impugned order and more particularly language of such order hen
Page 12 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
submission by learned D.9.P are not reproduced. $uch practice is
certainly re<uired to be condemned. 6espondents have also pointed out
that in fact, as per the settled legal position of criminal jurisprudence,
anyone if ants to add something against the accused in any criminal
trial, including complainant, they have the right to submit their vies
through the Public Prosecutor and 8noing it fully ell, atleast one of the
petitioner, namely, Dilipbhai #ivabhai Batariya has filed an application at
*+h.2 in the same -riminal Appeal No.22 of 2&() see8ing permission to
submit his case in an application for bail and suspension of sentence by
the respondent No.2 being appellant and original accused of the matter. ;t
is also evident on record that by order dated 2.'.2&(), $essions -ourt has
hile dismissing the application, directed said Dilipbhai #ivabhai
Batariya to submit his submission through the 9overnment Pleader.
%herefore, it is submitted that hen such order is not challenged, it
becomes final and hen a chance is given to petitioners to submit their
grievance, if any, no, they have no reason to allege against the $essions
-ourt or prosecutor.
2&. ;t is also evident from the record that petitioner has gone to the
e+tent by filing an application at *+h.2( before the $essions -ourt so as
to pressuri?e the $essions -ourt to rescue itself from the case and thereby
to see that the criminal appeal could not be decided at the earliest hen
they prayed to postpone the hearing of the criminal appeal on the ground
that they have filed an application for transfer of the appeal from the
-ourt and in present revision applications though there is not stay against
the proceedings of criminal appeal or by any competent -ourt. $uch
application as dealt ith by the $essions -ourt in detail and rejected it
by order dated ....2&(.. Petitioners have also filed another application at
*+h.)) in the appeal, disclosing that they have no faith in the -ourt and,
therefore, they ould see8 transfer of the case. %he $essions -ourt has no
option but to 8eep the matter in abeyance for (1 days hen it as alleged
Page 13 of 14
R/CR.RA/490/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
that application is filed against the concerned #udge before the !igh
-ourt ma8ing allegation against him, but ith direction that applicants
shall produce relevant evidence as alleged by them in their application
before the -ourt ithin ) days and arned the applicants to remain in
their limit hile ma8ing such submissions. Practically, perusal of the
record calls for scrutiny of all these applications and criminal appeal
pending before the $essions -ourt, Porbandar so as to verify that hether
contempt proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners or not.
2(. ;n any case, perusal of entire record certainly ma8es it clear that
these applications are nothing but an abuse of judicial process.
22. ;n vie of above facts and circumstances, ; do not see any
substance in these revision applications and, hence, same deserve to be
dismissed.
2). :or the foregoing reasons, all -riminal 6evision Applications are
dismissed.
(S.G.SHAH, J.)
binoy
Page 14 of 14