Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anant Ram vs The State Of Haryana on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
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.1214/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-12-2021
in CRM-40360-2021 in CRM-M-47793-2021 passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
ANANT RAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(IA No.19946/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No.19947/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 17-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Mittal, AOR Ms. Richa Sethi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The petitioner applied for bail which application was taken up on 22.11.2021 and the order-sheet records that it was adjourned at the request of the petitioner and the date given was 24.2.2022. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for pre- ponement of date seeking to make out a case as if he had never requested for adjournment and that request was rejected by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RASHI GUPTA Date: 2022.02.17 Order dated 01.12.2021. The order notes the reason for the same. 16:46:00 IST Reason:
It is this Order which is sought to be assailed in the special 1 leave petition.
We at the inception pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how an special leave petition would lie against a rejection of an application for pre-ponement when the adjournment was at the own request of the petitioner. Learned counsel while ignoring our advise continued to argue on merits of the case stating that the custody of the petitioner was illegal. We may notice that this a prosecution under the Pre-Conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 on account of illegal sex determination of the foetus and merely because the petitioner is a doctor cannot give him a license. After all a charge under the said Act in all probability will be against a doctor.
We find such endeavors complete wastage of judicial time when the matter is already listed on 24.2.2022 a week down the line before the High Court.
We feel that it is a fit case where we should impose costs on the petitioner for wastage of judicial time and dismiss the petition with Costs of Rs.7,500/- to be deposited with Supreme Court Group-C (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association within a period of four weeks from today.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
2