Subscriber : WBNUJS Library and Information Centre
MANU/SC/0059/1993
Equivalent Citation: AIR1993SC284, 1993CriLJ46, JT1992(5)SC598, 1993(1)RCR(Criminal)48,
1992(2)SCALE753, (1992)4SCC666, [1992]Supp1SCR898
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 585 of 1992
Decided On: 08.10.1992
Appellants:Karamjeet Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI)
Judges/Coram:
A.M. Ahmadi and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.L. Wadehra, Ashok Kumar Sharma and M.S. Buttalia, Advs
For Respondents/Defendant: Altaf Ahmed,Addl. Solicitor General, A. Subhashini, A.S. Bhasme and
S.M. Jadhav, Advs.
Subject: Criminal
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 320(4a);
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 330(2);
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 335(1)(b);
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 339;
Constitution Of India - Article 32
Disposition:
Petition Dismissed
Cases Referred:
Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0058/1993 ;
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0080/1981;
M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0222/1993;
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, MANU/SC/0611/1991
Citing Reference:
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. MANU/SC/0532/1992 Dissented
M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0222/1993 Mentioned
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0080/1981 Mentioned
Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India MANU/SC/0058/1993 Dissented
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh MANU/SC/0416/1992 Mentioned
Mentioned
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
March 8, 2019 Pag e | 1
3
CaseNote:
Constitution - Locus standi - Article 32 of Constitution of India - Petition had been filed by
Petitioner on behalf of Accused questioning legality and validity of conviction and
sentence by Designated Court - Hence, this Petition - Held, neither provisions of Cr.P.C.
1973 nor any other statute permitted a third party stranger to question correctness of
conviction and sentence imposed by Court after a regular trial - A third party could not be
allowed to initiate proceedings under Article 32 challenging order passed by Designated
Court and confirmed by Court on mere ground that convicts had acted under such an
obsession - Therefore, Petitioner had no 'locus standi' to move Court under Article 32 of
Constitution for challenging conviction and sentence awarded to two convicts by this
Court - Petition dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi:
"Third party cannot be permitted to challenge correctness of conviction and sentence
imposed by Court after a regular trial."
ORDER
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
March 8, 2019 Pag e | 2
Even if there are million questions of law to
1. The petitioner, Karamjeet Singh, who be deeply gone into and examined in a
claims to be the 'next friend' of the convicts criminal case of this nature registered
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and Harjinder against specified accused persons, it is for
Singh @ Jinda by reason of his having them and them alone to raise all such
participated along with them in Kar Seva for questions and challenge the proceedings
the restoration of Harminder Sahib, in initiated against them at the appropriate
Golden Temple. Amritsar, has filed this time before the proper forum and not for
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution third parties under the garb of public
questioning the legality and validity of their interest litigants.
conviction and sentence by the Designated
Court, Pune and the confirmation thereof by (Emphasis supplied)
this Court by its judgment rendered on July
15, 1992, See : State of Maharashtra v. On this line of reasoning we in that case
Sukhdev Singh MANU/SC/0416/1992 : observed as under:
1992CriLJ3454 . Though it is stated in the
petition that it is being filed 'on behalf of the
The two convicts could, if so minded, have
aforesaid two convicts it is clarified in
raised the contention in the earlier
paragraph 4 thereof that the said convicts
proceedings but a third party, a total
'have given oral and written instructions
stranger to the trial commenced against the
that none of their relations should file any
two convicts, cannot be permitted to
petition seeking justice or mercy for them'.
question the correctness of the conviction
It is, therefore, clear that this petition is not
recorded against them. If that were
filed on instructions given by the two
permitted any and every person could
convicts or at their behest. The petition is
challenge convictions recorded day in and
strongly opposed by the learned Additional
day out by courts even if the persons
Solicitor General on behalf of the
convicted do not desire to do so and are
respondent.
inclined to acquiesce in the decision.
2. The question which falls for
We, therefore, took the view that neither
determination in this petition is identical to
the provisions of the CrPC, 1973 nor any
the one which had arisen for consideration
other statute permitted a third party
by this Court in the case of Simranjit Singh
stranger to question the correctness of the
Mann v. Union of India
conviction and sentence imposed by the
MANU/SC/0058/1993 : 1993CriLJ37 ,
Court after a regular trial.
namely, whether a third party who is a total
stranger to the prosecution culminating in
the conviction of the accused, has any 'locus 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
standi' to challenge the conviction and contended that the petitioner had filed this
sentence awarded to them, by invoking petition as the next friend of the two
Article 32 of the Constitution? This Court convicts who were under a legal disability
after considering the relevant provisions of due to their intense obsession that the
the CrPC, 1973 and Order XXI of the person who was responsible for desecrating
Supreme Court Rules came to the the Harminder Sahib cannot be allowed to
conclusion that such a petition by a third survive and has no right to live being guilty
party stranger is not maintainable. In taking of such a high act of sacrilege against
this view this Court relied on the divinity. He submitted that the said
observations in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India obsession led the two convicts to believe
MANU/SC/0080/1981, M. Krishna Swami v. that the perpetrator of the sacrilege against
Union of India and Ors. divinity was the Government of the day and
MANU/SC/0222/1993 : AIR1993SC1407 justice could not be expected from it and
and in particular the observations in Janata hence they would themselves have to mete
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. out the 'punishment' to the said authorities
MANU/SC/0611/1991 : 1991CriLJ838 to the responsible for the demolition of the Akaal
following effect: Takht. He submitted that the two convicts
were under such legal disability and hence
the petitioner, as their next friend, was
entitled to move this petition under Article
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
March 8, 2019 Pag e | 3
32 of the Constitution. In support of the which would permit initiation of proceedings
contention that the petitioner was the next by a third party, be he a friend. It must be
friend of the two convicts reliance was remembered that the repercussions of
placed at the hearing on a letter purported permitting such a third party to challenge
to have been written on March 30, 1992 by the findings of the Court can be serious, e.g.
one of the convicts Harjinder Singh @ Jinda in the instant case itself the co-accused who
to Balwinder Singh wherein a reference was have been acquitted by the Designated
made to the petitioner. We assume that the Court and whose acquittal has been
petitioner is a friend of the two convicts and confirmed by this Court would run the risk
had brushed shoulders with them during Kar of a fresh trial and a possible conviction. It
Seva at Harminder Sahib. Learned counsel, is, therefore, hazardous to allow a third
therefore, invited our attention to the party to initiate proceedings under Article
observations in paragraph 7 of the 32 challenging the order passed by the
judgment in Simranjit Singh Mann's case Designated Court and confirmed by this
wherein we observed: Court on the mere ground that the convicts
had acted under such an obsession. Such a
Ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is submission, urged the learned Additional
affected by any order has the right to seek Solicitor General, is fraught with grave
redress by questioning the legality, validity consequences and would, we agree, shake
or correctness of the order, unless such the very foundation of the rule of law on
party is a minor, an insane person or is which a civilised society is based if the
suffering from any other disability which the aggrieved person is allowed to take the law
law recognises as sufficient to permit in his own hands and later plead disability
another person, e.g. next friend, to move on the ground that his action emanated
the Court on his behalf. If a guardian or a from an acute obsession that his victim had
next friend initiates proceedings for and on by his action forfeited the right to live and
behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it deserved to be punished with death. Such a
is in effect proceedings initiated by the party submission cannot be countenanced.
aggrieved and not by a total stranger who
has no direct personal stake in the outcome 4. Lastly it was submitted that this case
thereof. differed from the earlier case because the
petitioner has come as a next friend. He also
We are afraid these observation do not submitted that the sentiments of the entire
permit a mere friend like the petitioner to Sikh community expressed through their
initiate the proceedings of the present leaders of all hues should be taken note of
nature under Article 32 of the Constitution. by the Court. We appreciate their
The observations relied upon relate to a sentiments but that cannot alter the legal
minor or an insane or one who is suffering position. Besides, as a matter of record we
from any other disability which the law may also state that even Simranjit Singh
recognises as sufficient to permit another Mann had in the earlier petition by his
person, e.g. next friend, to move the Court affidavit dated August 25, 1992 contended
on his behalf; for example see : Sections that he was filing the writ petition as the
320(4a), 330(2) read with Section next friend of the condemned prisoners.
335(1)(b) and 339 of the CrPC. Admittedly, That petition was dismissed for want of
it is not the case of the petitioner that the 'locus standi' and we see no distinguishing
two convicts are minors or insane persons feature in the present petition to take a
but argued the learned Counsel that since different view.
they were suffering from an acute obsession
such obsession amounts to a legal disability 5. In the result, we hold that the petitioner
which permits the next friend to initiate has no 'locus standi' to move this Court
proceedings under Article 32 of the under Article 32 of the Constitution for
Constitution. We do not think that such a challenging the conviction and sentence
contention is tenable. The disability must be awarded to the two convicts by this Court's
one which the law recognises. A mere order of July 15, 1992. The petition is,
obsession based on religious belief or any therefore, summarily rejected.
other personal philosophy cannot be
regarded as a legal disability of the type
recognised by the CrPC or any other law
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
March 8, 2019 Pag e | 4
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt.
Ltd.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
March 8, 2019 Pag e | 5
