LexKARAMJEET SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KARAMJEET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA OCTOBER 8, 1992 B (AM. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : ATticle 32--Writ Petition by third party challenging conviction and C sentence by Supreme CouTt-Maintainabiliry of-Legal disabiliry iii invoking writ jurisdiction-Obsession based on religious belief or personal philo- sophy-Whether included. The petitioner, claiming to be the 'next friend' of two convicts tiled a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the le~lity and D validity of their conviction and sentence by the Designated Court, which was confirmed by this Court. E F G The petitioner contended that the petitioner tiled this petition as the next friend of the two convicts, who were under a legal disability due to their intense obsession that the person who was responsible for desecrat· ing the Harminder Sahib could not be allowed to survive and bad no right to live being guilty of such a high act of sacrilege against divinity; that the said obsession led the two convicts to believe that the perpetrator of the sacrilege against divinity was the Government of the day and justice could not be expected from it. The respondent contended that lf the aggrieved person was allowed to take the law in his own bands and later plead disability on the ground that bis action emanated from an acute obsession, he deserved the death penalty. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, HELD : I.I. Neither the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce· dure, 1973 nor any other statute permitted a third party stranger to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed l!y the H Court after a regular trial. [901-D] 898 KARAMJEETSINGH v. U.0.1. 899 1.2. The dlsabillty must be one which the law recognises. A mere A obsession based on religious belier or any other personal philosophy cannot be regarded as a legal disability of the type recognised by the Code or Criminal Procedure or any other law which would permit initiation of proceedings by a third party, be be a rriend. [902 F-G] 1.3. It Is hazardous to allow a third party to initiate proeeedings under Article 32 challenging the order passed by the Designated Court and confirmed by this Court on the mere ground that the convicts had acted under such an obsession. [902·H, 903-A) B 1.4. In the instant case itselrthe co-accused who have been acquitted C by the Designated Court and whose acquittal has been confirmed by this Court would run the risk of a fresh trial and a possible conviction. [902-H) 1.5. It was stated in the petition that it was filed on behalf or the two convicts; but it was clarified in paragraph 4 of the petition that the convicts instructed that none of their relations should file any petition seeking D justice .or mercy for them. Therefore, this petition was not filed on instruc· lions given by the two convicts or at their behest. [900-D) 1.6. The petitioner bas no 'locus standi' to move this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution fo~ challenging the conviction and sentence E awarded to the two convicts by this Court's order of Jul1 lS, 1992, reported in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992) 3 SCC 700. [903·F) Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, JT (1992) S SC 441, ex· plained. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Suppl. SCC 87; M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1992) S SC 92 and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 756, referred to. F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition G (Criminal) No. 585 of 1992. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Dr. B.L. Wadehra, Ashok Kumar Sharma and M.S. Butalia for the Petitioner. H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, A.S. Bhasme and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The petitioner, Karamjeet Singh, who claims to be the 'next friend' B of the convicts Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and Harjinder Singh @ Jinda by reason of his having participated along with .them in Kar Seva for the restoration of Harminder Sahib, in Golden Temple, Arniitsar, h~s filed this petition under 'Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the legality and validity of their conviction and sentence by the Designated Court, Pune C and the confirmation thereof by this Court by its judgment rendered on July 15, 1992, See : State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, [1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.