LAWS(SC)-2009-3-108

SANJAY DUTT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 31, 2009
SANJAY DUTT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, the 117th accused in Special Case No. 1/93 (Bombay Blast Case) before the Special Judge, TADA (Mumbai, was charged under various Sections of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) such as Section 3(3, Section 5 and Section 6 and also for the offence under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner has filed appeal against his conviction and sentence and that appeal is pending consideration before this Court. Pending consideration of that appeal, the petitioner was granted bail on 28-2-2007.

(2.) Crl. M. P. No. 4087 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying that execution of the order of conviction and sentence be suspended pending final hearing of the appeal. In the petition it is stated that he belongs to a family which has been in long public service in the country and the petitioner is now desirous of contesting election to the House of People from Lucknow Parliament Constituency and in view of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, he has incurred disqualification from contesting the election for becoming a member of either House of Parliament. Therefore, it is prayed that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner be suspended to enable him to contest the election.

(3.) We have heard Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposing the petition. Some third parties have also filed intervention applications. These parties were given opportunity to address their arguments even though we have not allowed any of these intervention applications as it is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.