Navjot Singh Sidhu V/s State of Punjab and Others

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2007-01-23
Case No: 59 of 2007
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: G.P. Mathur & R.V. Raveendran
Subject: Criminal Law - regorous imprisonment
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Section: Sections 319 and 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 34, 302, 304 Part II and 323-Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 7(b) and 8(3) and (4)
Bench Strength: Double Bench
State of Appellant(s): Punjab
Equal Citation Details :

2007(2) JT382, 2007 AIR 1003, 2007 (1) SCR1143, 2007 (2) SCC574, 2007 (2) SCALE 196 

Case Note / Description :

By virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the appellant incurred the disqualification as he has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 provides that if on the date of the conviction, a person is a Member of the Parliament then notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3), the disqualification mentioned therein shall not take effect until 3 months have elapsed from the date of order of conviction and if within that period an appeal is brought in respect of the conviction or sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the Court. Since the appellant was a sitting Member of Parliament, he would not have incurred the disqualification as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, for a period of 3 months and if within that period he had filed an appeal until the decision of the appeal. Therefore, the appellant could have easily avoided the incurring of the disqualification by filing an appeal within three months from the date of his conviction by the High Court. [Para 2] [1150-A-D] K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, [2005] 1 SCC 754, referred to. 2. Sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, he be released on bail, or on his own bond. This Sub-section confers power not only to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant bail but also to suspend the operation of the order appealed against which means the order of conviction. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate Court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)