IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P. NOS. 4087, 5229, 5230,5237 & 5314 OF 2009

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2007

SANJAY DUTT …PETITIONER/APPELLANT  

  VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      …RESPONDENT  TR. CBI, BOMBAY

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,   CJI   :

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.   

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

2

of  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.

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.

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  drew

our attention to the extracts of the judgment passed by the

learned  Special  Judge  and  elaborately  argued  that  the

petitioner  was  not  part  of  the  criminal  conspiracy  charged

3

against him.   He has been acquitted by the Special Judge for

the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA and no appeal

has been filed against that by the State and the conviction is

only under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25

(1B) of the Arms Act. It was argued that the conviction itself

for the above offences are based on alleged confession made

by the petitioner which was not strictly admissible under the

law.  It was also contended that the alleged possession of the

weapon  by  the  petitioner  was  much  prior  to  the  criminal

conspiracy allegedly hatched by other accused.  The learned

counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the fact

that  though  under  Section  12  of  the  TADA the  Designated

Court,  when  trying  any  offence,  was  competent  to  try  any

other offence with  which the accused may, under Cr.P.C., be

charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such

other  offence.     It  was  argued  that  the  finding  of  the

Designated Court  would  show that offence,  if  any, allegedly

found  against  the  petitioner  was  not  even  connected  with

other offences for which other accused were charged and, in

that  event,  Section  15  of  the  TADA  itself  would  not  be

4

attracted and the confession allegedly made by the petitioner

to the police officer was not admissible.   The learned counsel

further  argued  that  some  of  the  observations  made  by  the

Constitution Bench of this Court in  Prakash Kumar    vs.

State  of  Gujarat,   (2005)  2  SCC  409, require  slight

clarification.   The learned counsel  further pointed out that

the petitioner has got fair chance of appeal filed by him being

allowed and, if the conviction and sentence is not suspended,

he would be seriously prejudiced.  He placed reliance on the

decisions of this Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu   vs.  State of

Punjab & Anr,  (2007)  2 SCC 574,  and Rama Narang   vs.

Ramesh Narang,  (1995) 2 SCC 513.   

The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  for

the CBI contended that the conviction and sentence could be

suspended  only  in  exceptional  circumstances  and  the

petitioner in this case is not entitled to any such relief in view

of  the  serious  crime  allegedly  committed  by  him.   It  was

argued that under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People

Act, 1951, any person who has been convicted of any offence

5

and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years,

except any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section

(2), shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and

shall  continue  to  be  disqualified  for  a  further  period  of  six

years since his release.  Therefore, it is argued, when there is

an express prohibition of law from contesting the election, the

relief prayed for by the petitioner may not be accepted in the

facts and circumstances of the present case.  

We have carefully considered the contentions advanced

by  the  petitioner.   The  petitioner  has  been  convicted  for

serious offences. Of course,  his conviction and sentence have

been challenged before this Court in an appeal. Though our

attention was drawn to the various findings recorded by the

Special Judge and also the nature of evidence adduced by the

prosecution, we do not propose to consider these facts at this

stage as it may seriously prejudice either of the parties when

the appeal filed by the petitioner is considered by this Court.

The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his

contribution to art  and cinema he has got large number of

6

fans throughout the country and abroad.  His father was also

a well-known film actor and he was deeply involved in politics.

At one point of time,  petitioner’s  father was Minister  in the

Union Cabinet.  The petitioner is not a habitual criminal nor it

has been brought to our notice that he had involved in any

other  criminal  case.   Despite  all  these  favourable

circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case where

conviction and sentence could be suspended so that the bar

under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951

will  not  operate  against  the  petitioner.    Law prohibits  any

person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced

to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting

the election and such person shall be disqualified for a further

period of six years since his release.   In the face of such a

provision, the power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

shall be exercised only under exceptional circumstances.   

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  has

placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Navjot Singh

Sidhu’s case (supra).  But in that case, the petitioner was a

7

sitting MP and he could have continued as an MP even after

his  conviction  and  sentence  in  view  of  Section  8(4)  of  the

Representation of People Act, 1951.  The petitioner in Navjot

Singh Sidhu’s case (supra) resigned and expressed his desire

to contest the election.  In fact, that was a case where the trial

court acquitted the petitioner and the High Court, in reversal,

found the petitioner guilty.  It was in those circumstances this

Court granted stay of the order of conviction and sentence in

that case.

In the present case, no such circumstances are in favour

of the petitioner.  In view of the serious offence for which he

has been convicted by the Special Judge,  we are not inclined

to  suspend  the  conviction  and  sentence  awarded  by  the

Special Judge in the present case. We make it clear that we do

not  express  any  opinion  on  the  merit  and,  if  any  of  the

observations made in this order, even it has remote possibility

to  prejudice  either  parties,  we  state  that  the  same  is  only

made for the purpose of disposal of Cr.M.P. No. 4087 of 2009-

application for suspension/stay of conviction.

8

In  the  result,  Cr.M.P.  Nos.  4087/2009,  5229/2009,

5230/2009, 5237/2009 and 5314/2009 are dismissed.  

.......................................CJI ( K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)  

…..………………………………J. ( P. SATHASIVAM )

…………………………………..J. ( R.M. LODHA )

NEW DELHI March 31, 2009

9