9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same it would be advantageous to notice a few facts. 2. The assassins of General Vaidya were charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 465, 468, 471 and 212, I.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act') and Section 10 of the Passport Act. Five persons besides the absconding accused were put up for trial before the Designated Court, Pune. The Designated Court acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them except accused No. 1 Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and accused No. 5 Harjinder Singh @ Jinda who were convicted for the murder of General Vaidya and for causing bullet injury to his wife Bhanumati. Accused No. 1 was convicted under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding the rule of law and ensuring that the same is applied equally with fairness, equity and good consciousness to all. The main thrust of the petitioner's case is that once the Designated Court's finding that no case for conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out was affirmed by this Court, this Court had no jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence as the reference for confirmation could only be disposed of by the High Court of Maharashtra. This Court, avers the petitioner, deviated from this course in the case of the two convicts thereby violating the rule of law as well as Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. Secondly, contends the petitioner, if the case came to be decided by this Court under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of the State's appeal as well as the death reference, no submission was made by Mr. Sodhi on the petitioner's application dated 1st February, 1990. If that had been done, the need for this petition could have been obviated. 5. We now proceed to deal with the present petition. As stated earlier this is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. That article which finds a place in Part III of the Constitution entitled 'Fundamental Rights' provides that the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred in that part is guaranteed. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The petitioner does not seek to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility which the law recognises as sufficient to permit another person, e.g. next friend, 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 and not by a total stranger who has no direct personal stake in the outcome thereof. In the present case no fundamental right of the petitioner before us 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 minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with preventive detention cases where a friend or next of kin is permitted to seek a writ of Habeas Corpus. We are, therefore, satisfied that neither under the provisions of the 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 a regular trial. On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sodhi's contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognised political party who has a genuine interest in the future of the convicts should be entertained. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Bhagwati, J. observed: But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of law and fact were raised in support of the challenge. The High Court came to the conclusion that the said third party litigant had no 'locus standi' to maintain the action and so also the interveners had no right to seek impleadment/intervention in the said proceeding. However, the learned Judge took suo moto cognizance of the matter and for reasons stated in his order directed issue of show cause notice to the C.B.I and the State why the F.I.R. should not be quashed. On appeal this Court came to the conclusion that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in holding that the advocate litigant as well as the interveners had no 'locus standi'. The relevant observations found in paragraph 26 of the judgment read as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
