A bench headed by Justice Gogoi, in a 2:1 majority verdict on February 9, had granted relief to 76-year-old Sushil Ansal considering age-related complications by awarding him the jail term already undergone and had asked Gopal to surrender in four weeks to serve the remaining jail term.
said that plea filed by Gopal Ansal is "not maintainable" as he cannot seek a review of a verdict by filing a miscellaneous petition.
"Under the rules, review of a review order cannot be entertained like this as this is a criminal miscellaneous petition," he said, adding, "it cannot be maintainable".
A bench headed by Justice Gogoi, in a 2:1 majority verdict on February 9, had granted relief to 76-year-old Sushil Ansal considering age-related complications by awarding him the jail term already undergone and had asked Gopal to surrender in four weeks to serve the remaining jail term.
Gopal had thereafter approached the apex court seeking modification of its order on the grounds of parity, saying he was 69 years old and would suffer irreparable damage to his health if sent to prison.
During the proceedings today, the apex court also took up the plea filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) seeking modification of order sentencing Sushil Ansal to the period already undergone by him in jail.
"You (AVUT) are also seeking review of a review. You have filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking change in the order passed," the bench asked senior advocate K T S Tulsi, representing the victims' association.
The apex court dismissed AVUT's plea after Tulsi said he was not pressing for it and the bench can dismiss the same as there cannot be a review of a review order as has been sought by Gopal Ansal.
At the outset, Jethmalani said that circumstances were the same for Gopal Ansal as compared to his elder brother who was awarded the jail term of period already undergone by him.
He said the apex court had not given the relief to Gopal on the ground that he had not raised the issue of any age related complications earlier.
"After the trial court's judgement, my (Gopal) health has become much brittle. I am entitled to parity which has been denied to me on the ground that I have not raised the issue before the trial court.
"I am not saying that my brother should not have been given the relief. I am only saying that I am entitled to get the same treatment," Jethmalani said. (More)
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}