Crl. Misc. No. M-36877 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36877 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.12.2011 Col. B.S. Sandhu …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S. Rupal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that petitioners were convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for raising constructions over the land in dispute which falls within the periphery of Chandigarh without any specific permission from the PUDA. Further contends that in SLP Civil Suit No.24166-24167 of 2004 arising from the judgment of this Court dated 12.10.2004, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has directed maintenance of status quo as on the date of the impugned judgment in other respects as well. Mr. Ghai states that if SLP, pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, is allowed and demolition order is set aside and it is held that there is no violation of any Act or Rules and constructions were rightly raised by the petitioner, then criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners shall come to an end automatically. If appeal against the conviction is heard Crl. Misc. No. M-36877 of 2011 (O&M) 2 and decided against the petitioner and he is directed to suffer sentence, then in the event of allowing the SLP by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, time spent by the petitioner in jail cannot be restored to the petitioner, therefore, criminal appeal should be stayed till decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in pending SLP. He has fairly stated that an application shall be moved before Hon’ble the Supreme Court seeking interim direction to the Appellate Court not to take decision in the criminal appeal till pendency of the SLP before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Mr. Ghai contends that although he has remedy to move an application before Hon’ble the Supreme Court seeking interim directions to the Appellate Court, however, this Court must stay the proceedings before the Appellate Court in a criminal appeal. In the opinion of this Court, since petitioner has efficacious remedy to move application in pending SLP seeking direction pertaining to the stay of the appeal, I am not inclined to stay the proceedings before the Appellate Court. In my opinion, it would amount to modification of the interim order granted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 8, 2011 Judge Anand