IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2007 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2007 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2007 Shri Laxmandas Uttamchand Ahuja ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.T.S.Ahuja i/b. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh,Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for the Respondent No.1/State. V.N.Tayade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. P.M.Jadhav, Advocate, for the respondent No.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Ahuja with Mr. Deshmukh,the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. We have noted that the petitioner with the very same petition and the very same allegations of criminal contempt,had approached us in Cri.Contempt Petn.No.18 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 19.9.2006 on merits. 3. Thereafter,it appears that the petitioner approached the learned Advocate General, State of Maharashtra, vide his letter dated 11.12.2006 and without disclosing the fact that Criminal Contempt Petition No.18 of 2006 was dismissed by us.This Contempt Petition has been filed solely on the ground that the learned Advocate General vide his letter dated 25.4.2007 has accorded consent to adopt proceedings for criminal contempt against Shri Amardas Sujandas Shamnani. It is also pertinent to note that the consent granted by the learned Advocate General does not mention the name of present respondent No.3 who is the learned member of the Bar. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that once the Criminal Contempt Petition No.18 of 2006 was dismissed by us on merits, this fresh Contempt Petition for the very same cause cannot be entertained. The same is hereby dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)