Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Avadhesh Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 3 July, 2017

                                  1
                                                      RP.464/2015


     Avadhesh Singh Tomar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

03.07. 2017
      None for the parties because of the call of the High Court
Bar Association to abstain the court.
      By this petition petitioner No.1, who is present in person,
seeks review of the order dated 24th April, 2015 passed in Public
Interest Litigation (WP No. 2352/2015) wherein the petitioner
sought for following reliefs :-
      "1.     This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      direct the respondents No. 3 to 8 not to seek Search

Warrants under section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purposes of search and seizure for investigation of registered offence under the P.C. Act 1988 & other various Acts.

2. The competent Special Courts notified under the P.C. Act, 1988, be also directed not to issue Search warrants to the respondents for the routine course search and seizure for the investigation of Offences registered under the P.C. Act & other various Acts.

3. Further-more the respondents be directed to strictly comply with the provisions as contained U/Sec 165 & Sec 166 of Code of Criminal procedure & other relevant sections enacted for the purpose of Search & Seizure for investigation of Offences registered under the P.C. Act 1988 & other various Acts.

4. That, any other suitable & proper relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit for doing justice in the matter may be granted."

After taking into consideration various provisions more particularly provisions contained in Section 93 and 165 of the Cr.P.C. the Court found that no case for public interest is being made out and dismissed the public interest litigation by order dated 24.04.2015.

It is contended by the petitioner, who is also a practicing lawyer, that the impugned order deserves to be reviewed as there is an error which has crept in in the adjudication.

We have taken note of the submissions which deserve to be rejected at the outset as unless it is pointed out that there is an error apparent on the face of the record which has led to miscarriage of justice no review of an order is permitted which is passed after due consideration on merit.

Since we find no merits, present review petition is dismissed.

          (Sanjay Yadav)                                 (Sheel Nagu)
sarathe      Judge                                         Judge