HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. \r Criminal Misc. Petition No. 953 of2010 Petitioner : Satya Prakash @ Purshottam, S/o Netram, aged about 24 years, R/o UrKura, PS Khamtarai, District Raipur(CG) VERSUS Respondent : State of Chhattisgarh Petition under Sectjon 482362 of Gr.P.C. ^,.. Present: Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generat for the State. ORDER tnd (2naFebruary,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General ptacing reliance on the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sooraj Devi vs.Pyare Lal and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 736,Brij Basi Lal vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1384 and Moti Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1994 SC 1544 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedurein view ofthe specific barcontained in Section362ofCr.P.C. 2) Appellant Satya Prakash @ Purshottam was convicted vide judgmentdated 29.08.1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 240/1989. The appeal filed by petitioner Satya Prakash @ Purshottam against his conviction and sentence too was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.07.2010 passed in Cr.A. No. 914/199T, whereby the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C.and sentence of imprisonment for life was affirmed. 3) The petitioner by the present petition fited under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is seeking his release from jail mainly on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal he was granted probation bythe competent authorities under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Releaseon Probation Act, 1954. 4) Be that as it may, the fact remains that after the signing of the judgment in Cr.A, No. 914/1991 whereby the appeltant's conviction and sentence was affirmed, this Court in view ofthe specific bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. cannot grant the relief sought by the petitioner in this petition. 5) The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482of Cr.P.C., therefore, is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- ChiefJustice nimmi Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge