Shoukat Hussain Guru vs State (Nct) Delhi & Anr

4. The Designated Judge submitted the record of the case to the High Court of Delhi for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the three accused. Each of the four accused filed appeals against the verdict of the Designated Judge. The State also filed an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeals of Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain Guru and confirmed the death sentence imposed on them, and allowed the appeal of the State in regard to sentence under Section 121, IPC and awarded them death sentence under that Section also. The High Court allowed the appeals of S.A.R. Gilani and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru and acquitted them of all the charges. The judgment of the High Court gave rise to seven appeals - two appeals preferred by Shaukat Hussain Guru and one appeal by Mohd. Afzal and four appeals preferred by the State/Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the acquittal of S.A.R. 4 Gilani and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru. The matter was heard by this Court and by its judgment dated 4th August, 2005 this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Afzal and death sentence imposed upon him was confirmed. Appeal of the petitioner Shaukat Hussain Guru was partly allowed. He was convicted under Section 123, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. His conviction on the other charges was set aside. The appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru were dismissed.

The curative petition shall contain a certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the above requirements.

shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer of such commission or intention;

xxx xxx xxx"

17. After the judgment was delivered by this Court, the petitioner filed a review petition raising therein the contention that he was denied an opportunity of being heard against the charge under Section 123, IPC. Neither the charge nor the evidence revealed the ingredients of an offence under Section 123, IPC and thus his conviction for an offence under Section 123, IPC is an error apparent 22 on the face of the record and grave miscarriage of justice. It has resulted in a complete denial of natural justice.

18. Order XL in Part VIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with `review', under which an application for review shall be by a petition and shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. Unless otherwise directed by the court, the review petition so filed shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments. The petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party. An application for review was as far as practicable be circulated to the same Judge or Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Thus under the rules, a review petition is to be disposed of by circulation in chambers without any oral arguments. Unless there is a specific order of the court for placing the review petition in the open court, the matter shall be decided by circulation without there being any oral arguments, on the basis of the submissions made in the petition, but the petitioner may supplement his case by additional written arguments.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, for granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner for entertaining the present writ petition it is necessary to set aside the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court confirmed by dismissal of the review petition as also of the curative petition, which cannot be granted as not being permissible in exercise of the powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

22. That being the case, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition and grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

................................J. (P.P. NAOLEKAR) ................................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR) New Delhi;

May 14, 2008.