Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Lawstreet Journal

Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33yrs old road rage case.

Lawstreet Journal 26 Feb 2022 2:08am

  •  Like
  •    0   Comment
  •     Share
  • 579

Image courtesy: Lawstreet Journal Judiciary Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33yrs old road rage case.

Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33yrs old road rage case. Sidhu says his impeccable political &sporting career should be considered. He was earlier let off with a ₹1000 fine; SC will take up petitions seeking enhancement of punishment.

SC asks Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to file response on plea seeking that he should be punished for the offence of muder instead of causing hurt for which he was convicted and thereview petition filed against the verdict.

Supreme Court is hearing the review petition against its 2018 verdict which reduced the sentence of Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to Rs 1000 fine from 3 yrs imprisonment in a 1987 road rage incident in which a person died.

Senior Adv Luthra: this is the error apparent on the face of the record. In reference to Meena case and thus the scope of notice needs to be enlarged.

Sr Adv P Chidambaram for Sidhu: my friend is trying to enlarge the scope of review. Justice Kaul was part of the original judgment and they reached a conclusion that Sidhu did not cause death of deceased and thus case fell under Section 323 IPC

Chidambaram: to review this case after 4 years and for an incident of 1998, i say the scope of notice cannot be enlarged.

Justice Khanwilkar: notice was on circulation and not after hearing the parties.

Justice Khanwilkar: They have filed a formal application now seeking to enlarge the scope of notice

Justice Kaul: we can stick to original… Continue Reading...

0 like 0 Comments  Share 579

Tagged: Navjot Singh Sidhu  
Disclaimer: SoOLEGAL in Media collaboration with Lawstreet Journal. SoOLEGAL take no responsbility for the content provided by Lawstreet Journal. For any discrepancies Contact Lawstreet Journal.
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0