liberty to the petitioner while disposing of the SLP. We have gone through the order passed in the SLP. In the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely allowed the petitioner to withdraw the SLP by recording the statement of the counsel for the petitioner. It is required to be noted that on the basis of punishment order, the petitioner was allowed to appear in 2nd year and thereafter to third year BHMS course. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in view of the order of acquittal by the criminal Court, this Court may set aside the order of punishment. The said submission is absolutely without any basis. Even otherwise, the criminal Court has observed (page 67 of the compilation) that prosecution story appears to be probable but there is no evidence to establish the guilt directly. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Criminal Court has not said that the mark-sheet in question is a genuine mark-sheet and it is not a forged mark-sheet. The petitioner having accepted the punishment which was inflicted as back as in the year 2001 and on the basis, having appeared in the subsequent examinations now cannot take advantage of the acquittal order passed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner having accepted the punishment in 2001 cannot take advantage of the fact that there was some favourable observations made by the criminal court in acquitting the accused. The petitioner cannot file successive petitions especially when no relief was
