K VIDYA SAGAR Vs. DIRECTOR CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second revision petition under section 397 read with sections 401/482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, dismissing petitioner's application under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation. Petitioner's first revision petition (Crl.Rev.P.591/2005) against the same order came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.Sodhi on 3.8.2005. It was dismissed as withdrawn and the order reads as under: ?The petitioner who appears in person wishes to withdraw this petition. He is permitted to do so. Crl.Rev.P.591/2005 is dismissed as withdrawn.?

(2.) Shri R.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the CBI raised a preliminary objection submitting that the above petition is replica of the earlier revision petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.8.2005 by the petitioner and the second revision on the same facts is not maintainable. Elaborating the submissions learned counsel argued that limitation for filing the revision petition is 90 days; as per petitioner's own showing till date petitioner has not even applied for grant of certified copy of the impugned order and repeated filing of the revision petitions is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel also argued that one petition filed by the petitioner [Writ Petition (Crl.)No.182/2004] in the Supreme Court raising similar issues, was dismissed on 12.7.2005. The petitioner has referred to the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16237 of 1998 decided on 13.8.1999 and has deliberately concealed the subsequent order of the Supreme Court passed in said Writ Petition. It is an attempt to conceal material facts.

(3.) Mr.K.Vidya Sagar, petitioner appearing in person did not contest that earlier petition against the same impugned order was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.8.2005, however, he submitted that earlier petition was withdrawn to elaborate certain facts and grounds. On being asked, what are the fresh facts, it was pointed out that in the earlier petition, petitioner has stated that the CBI could not recover, most importantly, Court files of the petitioner belonging to his clients and now in the list of dates (22.4.1999), it has been added that ?X, Intermediate, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., original marks Lists and their respective degrees of the petitioner? could not be recovered by the CBI. It is also not in dispute that this petition was filed on 27.10.2005 and petitioner did not refer to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the writ petition on 12.7.2005 in K.Vidya Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and othes reported as (2005) 5 SCC 581.