LexSANJAY DUTT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. CBI, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 188 A SANJAYDUTT I" \I. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. CBI, BOMBAY IN Crl. M.P. Nos. 4087, 5229, 5230, 5237 & 5314 of 2009. B (Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007) MARCH 31, 2009 [K.G. 8ALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] c CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.389 - Suspension of conviction and sentence pending appeal - Accused acquitted of offences punishable under D Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 but convicted of offences punishable u/ss 3 and 7 r/w ss.25(1A) ,,_' and 25(1 B) of Arms Act and sentenced to six years RI by designated court - Pending appeal before Supreme Court, accused granted bail - Prayer for suspension of conviction and sentence pending appeal - Held: In view of the serious E offences for which the accused was convicted, Court declined to suspend the conviction and the sentence - Keeping in view the bar uls 8(3) of the 1951 Act, power of court uls 389 CrPC would be exercised only under exceptional circumstances - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.8(3). F The petitioner faced trial for commission of offences ' punishable u/ss.3(3), 5 and 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and u/ss 3, 7 r/w ss.25(1A) and 25(18) of Arms Act, 1959. He was found G guilty of offences punishable u/ss 3 and 7 r/w ss. 25(1A) and 25(18) of the Arms Act. and was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment He filed an appeal before ' the Supreme Court and pending appeal he was granted ' bail. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P .No.4087 of 2009 u/s 389 H of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that 188 ' .-~ y SANJAY DUTI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. CBI, 189 BOMBAY execution of order of conviction and sentence be also A suspended pending appeal as he was desirous of contesting the Lok Sabha elections. The other petitions were also filed in the matter. Dismissing the petitions, the Court B HELD: 1.1. The petitioner has been convicted of serious offences. Of course, his conviction and sentence have been challenged before this Court in an appeal. The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his contribution to art and cinema he has got large number C of fans throughout the country and abroad. The petitioner is not a habitual criminal nor has it been brought to the notice of the Court that he was involved in any other criminal case. Despite all these favourable circumstances, this is not a fit case where conviction and D sentence could be suspended so that the bar u/s 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. [Para 6] [193-C-F] 1.2. Law prohibits any person who has been E convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the election and such person shall be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. In the face of such a provision, the power of the Court u/s 389 Cr.P.C. shall be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. [Para 6] [193-G-H] F 1.3. In view of the serious offence of which the petitioner has been convicted by the Special Judge, this Court is not inclined to suspend the conviction and G sentence awarded by the Special Judge. [Para 8] [194-D] Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2007) 2 sec 574, distinguished. Pmkash Kumar vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R. A a?d Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513, cited. B Case Law Reference: (2001) 2 sec 57 4 (2005) 2 sec 409 (1995) 2 sec 513 distinguished cited cited Para 4 Para 4 Para 4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl.M.Nos. c 4087, 5229, 5230, 5237 & 5314 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007. IN From the Judgment 8, Order dated 31.07.2007 of the D Designated Court Greater Bombay, Maharashtra in Bomb Blast Case No. 1/1993. Gopal Subramanium, ASG, Harish N. Salve, Mukul Rohtagi, Soli J. Sorabjee, K.T.S. Tulsi, Ranjit Kumar, Kanak Raj, E Mukul Rohtagi, Ankur Chawla, Gaurav Bhatia, Minakshi, Hari Shankar K. Harshvardhan Jha, Vikas Singh, Ashish Jha, Alok Saran, R.S. Massy Verma (for T.N. Rao), Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla, Sunil Fernandes, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rajat Jariwal, Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Karan Singh, Hari F Shankar K. Vikas Singh, Jangra, Satya Kam, Raghenth Basant (for B.K. Prasad) for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was deli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.