Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a review petition filed by Satvir Singh, the maternal grandfather of PW6 Satish, seeking review of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995. The review petition and miscellaneous applications were filed out of time. The petitioner contended that as a third party he was competent to file the review petition, relying on S.P. Gupta v. President of India. The Court observed that the review application was not maintainable. It referred to Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, where this Court held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on averments of violation of their fundamental rights. It also referred to IA No.6/95 made in Contempt Petition No. 234/95, where a review petition filed by the State seeking review of conviction and sentence of an officer was held not maintainable. The Court distinguished S.P. Gupta v. President of India on the ground that in that case the petitioner was espousing the cause of independence of judiciary, whereas the present petitioner was not espousing such a cause but praying for review of a judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants. The Court held that the present case stood on an entirely different footing and that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the instant review petition. Accordingly, the review petition and the miscellaneous applications were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Review Petition - Locus Standi of Third Party - Not mentioned - The review petition was filed by the maternal grandfather of PW6 Satish seeking review of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995. The Court held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to convicts, relying on Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India and IA No.6/95 in Contempt Petition No. 234/95. The petitioner's reliance on S.P. Gupta v. President of India was rejected because that case concerned espousing the independence of judiciary, whereas the present petition sought review of a judgment in an appeal preferred by convicted appellants. Held: the review petition and miscellaneous applications were dismissed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a third party, the maternal grandfather of a prosecution witness, has locus standi to file a review petition against a judgment of conviction and sentence passed in a criminal appeal.
Final Decision
The review petition and the miscellaneous applications were dismissed as not maintainable because the petitioner, a third party, had no locus standi to seek review of the judgment passed in the criminal appeal.
Law Points
- Third party has no locus standi to challenge conviction and sentence
- review petition by stranger not maintainable
- S.P. Gupta v. President of India distinguished as espousing independence of judiciary not review of criminal appeal judgment
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (04) 67
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition and miscellaneous applications filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought review of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995, asserting that as a third party he was competent to file the review petition.
Filing Reason
The review petition was filed out of time by the maternal grandfather of PW6 Satish, contending that he had locus standi to seek review based on S.P. Gupta v. President of India.
Previous Decisions
The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995 had been passed; no prior order on this review petition is indicated except that it was filed out of time.
Issues
Whether a third party, namely the maternal grandfather of a prosecution witness, has locus standi to maintain a review petition against a judgment of conviction and sentence passed in a criminal appeal.
Whether the petitioner's reliance on S.P. Gupta v. President of India established his competence to file the review petition as a third party.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that as a third party he was competent to file the present petition for review, relying on S.P. Gupta v. President of India.
The Court considered the maintainability of the review petition in light of Simranjit Singh Mann and IA No. 6/95, which held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
A third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to convicts, even on averments of violation of their fundamental rights. S.P. Gupta v. President of India, which permitted a third party to espouse the cause of independence of judiciary, is distinguishable and does not confer standing on a third party to seek review of a judgment in an appeal preferred by convicted appellants. Therefore, a review petition by such a stranger is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In our view, the review application is not maintainable.
In Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India (1992 (4) SCC 653), this Court has held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on the averments of violation of their fundamental rights.
In S.P. Gupta’s case, the petitioner was espousing the case of independence of judiciary. The present petitioner is not espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants.
The review petition and the miscellaneous applications are therefore dismissed.
Procedural History
The review petition and miscellaneous applications were filed out of time by Satvir Singh, maternal grandfather of PW6 Satish, seeking review of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.650 of 1995. No prior orders in the review petition are indicated in the judgment text.
