SC reserves verdict on stay of Sidhu's conviction

New Delhi, Jan 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a petition filed by ex-test cricketer and former BJP MP from Amritsar Navjot Singh Sidhu praying for stay of his conviction in a road rage case, to contest the byelection to Amritsar Lok Sabha seat.

The Amritsar seat has fallen vacant following resignation by Sidhu from the seat after his conviction and sentence of three years along with a fine of Rs one lakh imposed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on him and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

65-year-old Gurnam Singh had died in Patiala on December 27, 1988 due to beating by the two after an altercation over parking.

Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for the complainant pleaded that it was a clear case of murder and the sentence should be enhanced and the petitioner could not seek stay of his conviction through the back door for contesting elections.

He also contended that it was for the Election Commission to decide whether he had incurred disqualification for contesting election or not and this court in a criminal appeal should not interfere with the order of conviction as under section 389 CRPC.

Only an order which was capable of being executed could be stayed and the order of conviction by itself was not executable and hence could not be stayed.

The court, however, responded by saying, ''This court is not helpless and can appreciate the evidence brought on record and if the Election Commission is competent, then this court is not incompetent.'' Earlier, another Senior Counsel Sushil Kumar also opposed the conviction and said it was up to the court to decide whether stay of conviction for elections would send the wrong signals and the petition would say that the apex court had permitted him to contest the election.

Senior Counsel Harish Salve appearing for Sidhu, however, pleaded for stay of the conviction on the grounds that it was a case of no evidence and the High Court had committed an error by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in September 1999.

He also contended that Sidhu joined public life in 2004 and the offence had nothing to do with his public life.

According to law, if a person has been sentenced to an imprisonment of not less than two years then he stands disqualified from contesting election.

Mr Salve also contended that it was not a case of moral turpitude and hence his client could not be disqualified from contesting election and keeping in with the high tradition of democracy, Sidhu imediately resigned after his conviction despite the fact that he could have continued for three months and this court must consider the conduct of his client following his conviction.

The court is most likely to deliver its judgment before January 25 which is the last date for filing of nomination for Amritsar Lok Sabha seat.

UNI