NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1143 · Decided: 23-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
JANUARY 23, 2007 
[G.P. MA THUR & R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 319 and 389-
Conviction of sitting Member of Parliament to 3 years regorous 
imprisonment-Person resigning and seeking re-election from same seat-
Conviction challenged-Person released on bail and execution of sentence 
suspended-Application filed seeking suspension of order of conviction-
A 
B 
c 
D 
Held, Section 389(1) confers power not only to suspend execution of 
sentence and to grant bail but also to suspend order of conviction-Person 
could have continued to remain as Member of Parliament by merely filing 
appeal or revision within 3 months from order of conviction till its 
decision-However, person setting high standards in public life and 
resigning from seat-Road side altercation-Incident happening all of a 
sudden without any pre-meditation-No motive for commission of crime-
Name of person not specifically mentioned in FIR and summoned under 
Section 319-Medical evidence inconclusive regarding cause of death of 
deceased-High Court reversing order of acquittal passed by Trial Court-
E 
Incident happening prior to person entering public life and having no 
connection with public life of person-In the facts and circumstances of the 
case, order of conviction passed by High Court suspended-Indian Penal 
Code, 1860-Sections 34, 302, 304 Part II and 323-Representation of 
People Act, 1951-Sections 7(b) and 8(3) & (4). 
F 
Appellant-N was a sitting Member of Parliament when he along with 
co-accused-R was convicted under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal, 
Code, 1860, and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 
Rs. One lakh each by the High Court in appeal while reversing order of 
acquittal by the Trial Court. The case of the prosecution was that G along 
with P.W. 3-J and P.W. 4-A were going to Bank for withdrawing money 
in car driven by G and when G tried to overtake a Gypsy occupied by 
appellant and R, the Gypsy turned and blocked the path and when G objected 
to the obstruction caused by Gypsy, appellant and R got out of the Gypsy 
vehicle and after abusing the occupants of the car, gave them fist blows also 
1143 
G 
H 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] I S.C.R. 
A 
and escaped in their Gypsy taking away the keys of the Maruti car. G had 
fallen down and was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. Appellant 
and co-accused R were tried for charges under Section 302 IPC and 
Section 323 read with Section 34 JPC but were acquitted by the Trial Court. 
B 
Appellant immediately after pronouncement of judgment by the High 
Court, resigned from membership of the Lok Sabha and wanted to seek 
fresh mandate from the electorate by contesting the election. Appellant 
filed Special Leave Petition challenging his conviction in which leave has 
been granted and appellant has been released on bail and execution of 
sentence upon him has been suspended. Appellant has also moved an 
c application for suspending the order of conviction passed against him by the 
High Court. 
Appellant inter alia contended that the medical evidence on record 
does not at all disclose commission of an offence under Section 304 Part 
D 
II IPC and even ifthe prosecution version of the incident is accepted in toto, 
it may at best amount to a case Under Section 323 IPC in which the 
maximum sentence which can be awarded is 1 year R.I. and in such 
circumstances the appellant would not incur any disqualification under 
Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
E 
Respondents inter alia contended that the appellant having given up 
his rights under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the 
People Act and having himself resigned from the membership of the 
Parliament, should not be permitted to offer himself as candidate and 
cannot again come back to the Parliament until the appeal is decided in his 
F 
favour; and that in order to maintain purity and probity in public bodies, 
criminalisation of politics has to be stopped and persons who have been 
convicted of any offence should not be allowed to enter the Parliament. 
Allowing the application, the Court 
G 
HELD: I. By virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 the appellant incurred the 
disqualification as he has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. Sub-section (4) of 
Section 8 provides that if on the date.ofthe conviction, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.