The Supreme Court will on Friday hear a petition filed by Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu, urging the Apex Court not to punish him any further in a road rage case, which was going on for the past 33 years.
A Bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul will take up the review petition demanding enhancement of Sidhu’s punishment.
Earlier in 2018, Sidhu was held guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntary hurt) that entails a maximum jail term of one year or with a fine up to Rs 1,000 or both.
The bench had in September, 2018, issued notice to Sidhu on the limited question of revisiting the quantum of punishment awarded to him by the Apex Court in its May 2018 decision that held him guilty for causing hurt and directed payment of fine of Rs 1,000.
Also Read: Supreme Court asks Centre if bitcoins or any cryptocurrency is legal or not
The review petitions have been filed by the family members of 65-year-old Gurnam Singh, who died in the road rage incident involving Sidhu and his friend .
In an affidavit in response to a court notice issued in September 2018 , Sidhu says his impeccable political & sporting career should be considered. Sidhu claimed that he has worked for the welfare of people at large as a Parliamentarian.
It is submitted that in the present case, after due appreciation of the material on record and considering the relevant factors such as time elapsed from date of incident, antecedents of Respondent – Accused (Sidhu), no recovery of weapon from him , no past enmity etc. , a sentence of maximum fine permissible for Section 323 has already been imposed. Whether this aspect i.e. , the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in imposing a sentence of fine is correct or not , cannot be a ground to review the decision. It is settled law that my possibility of alternative view on the sentence imposed is not a ground for entertaining a review.
Also Read: Amazon-Future deal: Delhi High Court adjourns hearing to Monday
Further the affidavit states that more than three decades have passed since the date of the incident. The Top Court in numerous cases considered a fine as an adequate punishment if there has been a long passage of time from the date of offence. The respondent faced trial between 1994 and 1999 and abided by all the directions of the trial court and was eventually acquitted. Against the order of acquittal , an appeal was preferred by the state and the complainant i.e. , the petitioner whereupon theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana was pleased to set aside the order of acquittal.
“.. the answering respondent (Sidhu) herein, through various philanthropic gestures has made contributions towards social welfare by helping those in need of immediate financial assistance and by contributing to the development of environmental projects. The above stated indisputable facts exhibit that the answering respondent has been a law-abiding citizen and ought not be punished any further,”
-the affidavit said.