SHAMEEM AHMAD vs STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 + CRL.M.C. 3002/2026, CRL.M.A. 12222/2026 & 12221/2026 SHAMEEM AHMAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocates. versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Akash. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has assailed judgment and order dated 29.01.2026 of the Court of Sessions, whereby order dated 15.05.2025 of the learned trial magistrate was upheld, thereby holding the petitioner liable to be charged under Section 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act. 2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, I do not find the petition worth even issuing notice. 3. At the outset, the issue of maintainability has been put to the learned counsel for petitioner. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2026 CRL.M.C. 3002/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH Signature Not Verified COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, Digitally Signed cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.21 05:49:12 -07'00' By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:25:37 were passed in the revision proceedings instituted by the present petitioner. The provision under Section 438(3) BNSS categorically prohibits filing of the second revision petition. It is trite that what is explicitly prohibited by law cannot be allowed backdoor entry invoking inherent powers, unless a case of gross injustice is brought before the High Court. 4. Broadly speaking, according to prosecution case, on the