Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Satvir Singh Vs. Baldeva and Other

Satvir Singh vs Baldeva and Other

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Apr 24, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/641279

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Review Petition. No. 884 of 1996.
Subject
Constitution ;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - President of India [1982]2SCR365 and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review.

Key legal issue
Constitution ;Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satvir Singh

Advocate R.K. Jain,; Kanwaljit Kochar,; A. Bhalla and;

Respondent

Baldeva and Other

Advocate K.C. Bajaj and ; D.B. Vohra, Advs.

Legal References

Cases Referred
S.P. Gupta v. President of India
Reported In
AIR1997SC169; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)282; 1997CriLJ66; 1996(4)SCALE201; (1996)8SCC593; [1996]Supp1SCR770

Court's Analysis

Prior History
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.95 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 170 DB/94 and Murder Reference No. 2/94.

Excerpt

- - president of india [1982]2scr365 and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review.order1. this review petition and other miscellaneous applications in connection with the review petition have been filed out of time. it has been filed by satbir singh, the maternal grand-father of pw6 satish, seeking for review of the judgment passed in crl. appeal no. 650 of 1995.2. in our view, the review application is not maintainable. in simranjit singh mann v. union of india : 1993 crilj37 , this court has held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on the averments of violation of their fundamental rights.3. in ia no. 6/95 made in contempt petition no. 234/95 (slate of karnataka v. i.r. dhananjaya) it has been held that the review petition filed by the state seeking review of the conviction and sentence of one of the officers of the state was not maintainable. the petitioner in this review petition has relied on the decision of this court in s.p. gupta v. president of india : [1982]2scr365 and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review. such contention, however, cannot be accepted. in s.p. gupta's case the petitioner was espousing the cause of independence of judiciary. the present petitioner is not espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants. the same stands entirely on different footing and, in our view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the instant review petition.4. the review petition and the miscellaneous applications are therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This review petition and other miscellaneous applications in connection with the review petition have been filed out of time. It has been filed by Satbir Singh, the maternal grand-father of PW6 Satish, seeking for review of the judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 650 of 1995.

2. In our view, the review application is not maintainable. In Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India : 1993 CriLJ37 , this Court has held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on the averments of violation of their fundamental rights.

3. In IA No. 6/95 made in Contempt Petition No. 234/95 (Slate of Karnataka v. I.R. Dhananjaya) it has been held that the review petition filed by the State seeking review of the conviction and sentence of one of the officers of the State was not maintainable. The petitioner in this review petition has relied on the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. President of India : [1982]2SCR365 and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review. Such contention, however, cannot be accepted. In S.P. Gupta's case the petitioner was espousing the cause of independence of judiciary. The present petitioner is not espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants. The same stands entirely on different footing and, in our view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the instant review petition.

4. The review petition and the miscellaneous applications are therefore dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial