Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr. Anup Vinod Vidhani &Amp Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2014
Bench: J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
6713-6714/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/03/2013
in SCRA No. 2090/2012,21/03/2013 in SCRA No. 3229/2011 passed by
the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)
DR. ANUP VINOD VIDHANI & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and exemption from
filing O.T. and office report)
Date : 24/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner-in-person has raised several grievances including the tampering of the record of the trial Court. According to the petitioner-in-person, certain exhibit numbers have been inserted wrongly and certain exhibit numbers have been back dated. Petitioner-in-person is not in a position to point out whether those exhibits were correctly and validly Signature Not Verified exhibited or not and whether said exhibits contain any Digitally signed by Deepak Mansukhani Date: 2014.11.26 15:28:48 IST document or material which is adverse to him. In the Reason: circumstances, we do not propose to go into these matters which may be appropriately gone into by the trial Court or the High Court, i.e. the Gujarat High Court. Even -2- according to the petitioner-in-person, a petition or proceeding making these grievances is pending before the Gujarat High Court.
The petitioner-in-person has further submitted that he did not jointly agree for the date of 26 th March, 2014 as recorded in the order of the High Court. According to the petitioner-in-person, this Order was passed because the High Court declined to give him access to the reports submitted to the High Court by the learned Registrar, Vigilance. Since no right of the petitioner has been determined by the impugned order, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make an application to the High Court for reviewing this Order and also for making an application for perusal of the reports. The High Court shall pass a reasoned order either permitting or denying the said reports to him. The petitioner may take further steps thereafter.
We consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the special leave petitions at his own request. The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER