Vijay Kumar Mallik Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 765 – 66 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.98 of the Patna High Court in Crl. M.No. 18762 of 1996)
WITH
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208 of 1997
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.98 of the Patna High Court in Crl. M.No. 18762 of 1996)
WITH
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208 of 1997
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Petitioner: Vijay Kumar Mallik
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 765 – 66 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.98 of the Patna High Court in Crl. M.No. 18762 of 1996)
WITH
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208 of 1997
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.98 of the Patna High Court in Crl. M.No. 18762 of 1996)
WITH
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208 of 1997
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Judges: G.T.NANAVATI & S.P.KURDUKAR,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 08, 1998
Appearances:
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, D.D. Thakur, Mr.U.R.Lalit, Sr. Advocates, Mr.Vikas Singh, Mr. E.C.Vidya Sagar, Mr. L.N.Rao, Mr. G.R.K.Prasad, Mr. N.N.Bhat, Mr. Jitender Singh, Mr. V.S.Reddy, Mr. A.K.Sinha, Mr. A.D.N.Rao, Mr. P.Parmeswaran, (B.B.Singh) Advocate (NP) Mr. A.K.Sinha, Romy Chackno, Mr. Y.P.Mahajan, Mr. S.A.Matto, Advocates with them for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Art 136 – Impugned order passed and confirmed by High Court – Making an application and obtaining an order of remand – Held cannot be considered as abuse of process of Courts (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. In our opinion considering the stage at which the matter was when the impugned order came to be passed by the trial court and which has been upheld by the High Court it cannot be said that by making an application for remand and obtaining an order for remand from the Court, the respondent can be said to have abused the process of the court. We would have given reasons in support of our order but as the matters are still pending in different courts, we do not think it proper to do so.
3. The appeals and writ petition are disposed of.
1. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. In our opinion considering the stage at which the matter was when the impugned order came to be passed by the trial court and which has been upheld by the High Court it cannot be said that by making an application for remand and obtaining an order for remand from the Court, the respondent can be said to have abused the process of the court. We would have given reasons in support of our order but as the matters are still pending in different courts, we do not think it proper to do so.
3. The appeals and writ petition are disposed of.
