Sanjay Dutt vs State of Maharashtra Thr. CBI, Bombay

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to suspend execution of an order of conviction and sentence pending appeal can be exercised only under exceptional circumstances, particularly where the conviction results in disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, prohibiting a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting elections, with disqualification continuing for a further six years post-release. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) A conviction for serious offences under the Arms Act (Sections 3, 7 read with 25(1A) and 25(1B)), even absent habitual criminality or other favorable personal factors such as public fame or family background in public service, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of conviction to enable contesting parliamentary elections. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 597

K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, R. M. LODHA
Sanjay Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Thr. CBI, Bombay – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Gopal Subramanium, ASG, Harish N. Salve, Mukul Rohtagi, Soli J. Sorabjee, K.T.S. Tulsi, Ranjit Kumar, Kanak Raj, Sr. Advs., Mukul Rohtagi, Ankur Chawla, Gaurav Bhatia, Ms. Minakshi, Hari Shankar K., Harshvardhan Jha, Vikas Singh, Ashish Jha, Alok Saran, R.S. Massy Verma (for T.N. Rao), Manoj Saxena, Raul Shukla, Sunil Fernandes, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rajat Jariwal, Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Karan Singh, Hari Shankar K., Vikas Singh Jangra, Satya Kam, Raghenth Basant (for B.K. Prasad), Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

The power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to suspend execution of an order of conviction and sentence pending appeal can be exercised only under exceptional circumstances, particularly where the conviction results in disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, prohibiting a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting elections, with disqualification continuing for a further six years post-release. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

A conviction for serious offences under the Arms Act (Sections 3, 7 read with 25(1A) and 25(1B)), even absent habitual criminality or other favorable personal factors such as public fame or family background in public service, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of conviction to enable contesting parliamentary elections. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI. —

1. The petitioner herein, the 117th accused in Special Case No. 1/93 (Bombay Blast Case) before the Special Judge, TADA (Mumbai), was charged under various Sections of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) such as Section 3(3), Section 5 and Section 6 and also for the offence under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25 (1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner has filed appeal against his conviction and sentence and that appeal is pending consideration before this Court. Pending consideration of that appeal, the petitioner was granted bail on 28.2.2007.

2. Crl,M.P. No. 4087 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying that execution of the order of conviction and sentence be suspended pending final hearing of the appeal. In the petition it is stated that he belongs to a family which has been in long public service in the country and the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 597

K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, R. M. LODHASanjay Dutt – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra Thr. CBI, Bombay – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, R. M. LODHA
Sanjay Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Thr. CBI, Bombay – Respondent