SHAUKAT HUSSAIN GURU versus STATE (NCT) DELHI & ANR.

SHAUKAT HUSSAIN GURU versus STATE (NCT) DELHI & ANR.

The Supreme Court's prior conviction of the petitioner under Section 123 IPC without specific charge did not prejudice him or violate principles of natural justice, as the defence available under Section 123 IPC was also available in respect of the major offences for which he was expressly charged. Section 222 CrPC permitted conviction for this minor offence. Article 32 cannot be used to challenge a concluded judgment of the Supreme Court, especially following dismissal of review and curative petitions.

Parties
Petitioner: Shaukat Hussain Guru; Respondent: State (NCT) Delhi & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No. 106 of 2007 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Order on Writ Petition After Earlier Conviction, Review Petition and Curative Petition
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Conviction Without Charge, Minor Offences Under Cr PC Section 222, Article 32 Jurisdiction, Framing of Charge, Natural Justice, Review and Curative Petitions, Parliament Attack Case
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Conviction Without Charge Minor Offences Under Cr PC Section 222 Article 32 Jurisdiction Framing of Charge Natural Justice Review and Curative Petitions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaukat Hussain Guru

Petitioner

State (NCT) Delhi & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No. 106 of 2007 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Order on Writ Petition After Earlier Conviction, Review Petition and Curative Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Section 123 IPC without a specific charge is justified
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's own prior judgment can be challenged under Article 32 invoking violation of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether Section 123 IPC is a minor offence in relation to Sections 121, 121A, 122 IPC justifying conviction under Section 222 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's prior conviction of the petitioner under Section 123 IPC without specific charge did not prejudice him or violate principles of natural justice, as the defence available under Section 123 IPC was also available in respect of the major offences for which he was expressly charged. Section 222 CrPC permitted conviction for this minor offence. Article 32 cannot be used to challenge a concluded judgment of the Supreme Court, especially following dismissal of review and curative petitions.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • No grounds found to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
  • Petitioner's conviction under Section 123 IPC without framing the charge is justified.