SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 16-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 32-Locus standi-Criminal Case-Murde~rosecution cul-
C minating in convictiort-Award of death sentence convicts not prefering ap-
peal-Third party a total stranger-Whether could challenge the conviction 
and sentence. 
The accused in General Vaidya's murder case, were charge-sheeted 
for his murder and for causing bullet injury to his wife. They were tried 
D for the offences under various provisions of !PC, Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities Act, and the Passport Act. The Designated Court convicted two 
of the accused under secs.302 and 307, IPC and sentenced them to death 
and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, respectively. The other accused 
were acquitted. 
E 
The State preferred an appeal before this Court against the acquit-
F 
G 
tal whereas the two convicts sentenced to death did not prefer an appeal. 
But the death sentence came up for confirmation by this Court. On 
reassessment of the entire evidence, this Court dismissed the State's 
appeal, and confirmed the conviction and sentences of the two convicts. 
The petitioner, President of a political party, claiming to be inter-
ested in upholding the Rule of Law, filed the present Writ Petition chal-
lenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the two convicts on 
various grounds including alleged violation of Fundamental Rights 
guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 
Dismissing the petition on the question of locus, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. The petitioner has no 'locus standi' to invoke this Court's 
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. [599-D) 
H 
1.2. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is affected by any order 
592 
:~ 
, 
SIMRANJIT MANN v. U.0.1. 
593 
has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or cor-
A 
rectness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is 
suffering from any other disability which the law recognises as sufficient 
to permit another person to move the Court on his behalf. If a guardian 
or a next friend initiates proceedings for and on behalf of such a disabled 
aggrieved party, it is in effect proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved B 
and not by a total stranger who has no direct personal stake in the 
outcome thereof. (596 G-H, 597-A] 
13. In the present case no fundamental right of the petitioner is 
violated; if at all the case sought to be made out is that the fundamental 
rights of the two convicts have been violated. The two convicts could, if so C 
minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third 
party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, 
cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction recorded 
against them. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge 
convictions recorded day in and day out by courts even if the persons 
convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the D 
decision. (597 A-Bl 
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981] Suppl. SCC 87; M.Krishna 
Swami v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1992) 5 SC 92 and Janata Dal v. H.S. 
Chowdhary & Ors., (1991] 3 SCC 756, relied on. 
E 
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., [1988] 2 SCC 602, referred to. 
2.1. Neither under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 
nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question 
the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after F 
a regular trial. [597 F-G] 
2.2. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that 
the two convicts have authorised the petitioner to move this Court on their 
behalf. (596-FJ 
G 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 536 of 1992. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner. 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
AHMADI, J. Does a Petitioner-third party who is a total stranger to 
the prosecution culminating in the conviction of the accused have any 'locus 
standi' to challenge the conviction and the sentence awarded to the convicts 
in a petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution? If the answer 
to this poser is in the negative this petition must fail on that preliminary 
ground. Before we proceed to answer the same it would be advantageous 
to notice a few facts. 
The 

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