SATVIR SINGH Vs. BALDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition and other miscellaneous applications in connection with the review petition have been filed out of time. It has been filed by Satbir Singh, the maternal grand-father of PW 6 Satish, seeking for review of the judgment passed in Cri. Appeal No. 650 of 1995.

(2.) In our view, the review application is not maintainable. In Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 653 : (1992 AIR SCW 3133), 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.

(3.) In IA No. 6/95 made in Contempt Petition No. 234/95* (State of' Karnataka v. T. R. Dhananjaya), it has been held that the review petition filed by the State seeking review of the conviction and sentence of one of the officers of the State was not maintainable. The petitioner in this review petition has relied on the decision of this Court in S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review. Such contention, however, cannot be accepted. In S. P. Gupta's case, the petitioner was espousing the case of independence of judiciary. The present petitioned is not espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants. The same stands entirely on different footing and in our view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the instant review petition.