NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Navjot Singh Sidhu along with co-accused-Rupinder Singh Sandhu was tried for charges under S. 302, I.P.C. and S. 323 read with S. 34, IPC, but was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, by the judgment and order dated 22-9-1999 which order was challenged by the State of Punjab by filing an appeal in the High Court which has been allowed and the appellant has been convicted under S.304, Part II, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. and a fine of rupees one lakh. The co-accused-Rupinder Singh Sandhu has also been convicted under S. 304, Part II read with S. 34, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. and a fine of rupees one lakh. He has further been convicted under S. 323, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to 3 months R.I. The appellant filed special leave petition in this Court in which leave has been granted on 12-1-2007 and he has been released on bail and thus the execution of the sentence imposed upon him has been suspended. The appellant also moved an application for suspending the order of conviction passed against him by the High Court on which notice was issued to the State of Punjab and the said application is being disposed of by the present order.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the filing of the application for suspension of order of conviction need to be noticed. The appellant was a sitting Member of Parliament. Immediately after the pronouncement of judgment by the High Court, he resigned from the membership of the Lok Sabha. It is stated in the application that for maintaining probity and moral values in public life he resigned from the membership of the Lok Sabha after his conviction. However, he wants to remain in public life and, therefore, wants to contest the election again and face the electorate in the changed scenario. The reason for seeking a stay or suspension of order of conviction arises on account of S. 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by operation of which he has incurred a disqualification for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament. Section 7(b) and sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which have a bearing on controversy in hand read as under :-

(3.) Before proceeding further it may be seen whether there is any provision which may enable the Court to suspend the order of conviction as normally what is suspended is the execution of the sentence. Sub-section (1) of S. 389 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, that he be released orn 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. This question has been examined in considerable detail by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others (1995) 2 SCC 513 and Ahmadi, C.J., speaking for the Court, held as under (para 19 of the reports) :-