ARVINDBHAI V PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner as Special Criminal Application. Though it is not stated that it is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, it goes without saying that the petition could only be under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. In this petition the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, below Exh. 40 in Criminal Case No. 1327 of 1989 on 30/06/1992, and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 1-9-1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 1992 rejecting the said Revision Application be quashed and set aside and the further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1327 of 1989 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate be stayed in view of the provisions of Sec. 391(6) of the Indian Companies Act.

(2.) Once the Revision Application is rejected, Second Revision Application is not maintainable, as provided under Sec. 399(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge in such Revision Application would become final. The impugned order, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate below Exh. 40 in Criminal Case No. 1327 of 1989, is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 1992. Therefore in my view, this petition which is titled as Special Criminal Application would not be maintainable in eye of law.

(3.) That apart, the request made in this petition as well as before the Sessions Court in Revision Application to stay further proceedings was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. That being an interlocutory order, no Revision Application would lie as provided under Sec. 397(2) of Cr.P.C. and therefore also this petition is required to be dismissed. That apart, this Court has, in earlier petition, ordered the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case against the accused immediately and according to that order the learned Magistrate has to continue the proceedings. Therefore, on merits also there is no case in favour of the petitioner.