Error apparent, says court while sentencing Sidhu
May 19, 2022  14:44
image
Update: The Supreme Court Thursday imposed a one-year sentence on cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 1988 road rage case. 

 A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K Kaul allowed the review plea filed by the victim's family on the issue of the sentence awarded to Sidhu.

 Though the apex court had in May 2018 held Sidhu guilty of the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" to a 65-year-old man in the case, it spared him a jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000. ..we feel there is an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, we have allowed the review application on the issue of sentence. In addition to the fine imposed, we consider it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year," the bench said while pronouncing the verdict. 

 In September 2018, the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased and had issued the notice, restricted to the quantum of sentence. 

 The top court had earlier asked Sidhu to file his response on the application which had said that his conviction in the case should not have been merely for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurt. 

 Sidhu had on March 25 told the top court that the plea seeking enlargement of the scope of notice in the matter relating to review of the sentence awarded to him was an abuse of process.

 In a reply filed to the application seeking enlargement of the scope of notice, Sidhu had said the apex court, after a careful perusal of the contents of the review petitions, has restricted its scope to the quantum of sentence.

 It is well settled that whenever this court issues notice confining to sentence, arguments will be heard only to that effect unless some extraordinary circumstance/material is shown to the Court. 

It is respectfully submitted that the contents of the present applications reiterate only overruled arguments and do not show any extraordinary material, calling for interference on all aspects from this court, the reply had said. -- PTI
« Back to LIVE

TOP STORIES