The case involves a Special Leave Petition challenging the conviction of petitioners Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, with a 10-year imprisonment sentence and a fine. An application for exemption from surrendering was rejected on 01.03.2019, giving six weeks for surrender. On 24.02.2020, due to non-submission of surrender proof, two weeks were granted.
Sanjit Saha filed applications for restoration, condonation of delay, and recalling the order. After confirming Sanjit’s surrender, the court restored his Special Leave Petition, considering personal liberty and reporting delay due to an advocate’s passing. Anil Saha’s surrender status was unclear, prompting an inquiry.
On 25.09.2023, the court, satisfied with Sanjit’s compliance, recalled the order dated 24.02.2020 and restored his Special Leave Petition. For Anil Saha, a report from the Additional Sessions Judge indicated he surrendered on 15.03.2019 but passed away on 26.05.2023. The court directed further directions for Anil’s case, listing it on 09.10.2023.
A compliance report from the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed Anil’s surrender, transfer, and subsequent demise. The court, considering the circumstances and verifying the surrender order, resolved to list Anil Saha’s matter for further directions.
In conclusion, the court’s judgment reflects a meticulous consideration of the Special Leave Petition filed by Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha challenging their conviction. The court, recognizing the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India concerning personal liberty, addressed issues surrounding surrender, delay, and recall of orders.
Sanjit Saha’s compliance with surrender orders was verified, and the court, acknowledging the delay in reporting compliance due to unforeseen circumstances, condoned the delay. As a result, Sanjit Saha’s Special Leave Petition was restored, ensuring a fair hearing on its merits.
For Anil Saha, an inquiry into his surrender status revealed that he had surrendered but unfortunately passed away while serving his sentence. The court, acknowledging the unique circumstances, listed Anil Saha’s case for further directions, recognizing the need for additional consideration.
In essence, the judgment balances the imperative of justice with the individual circumstances of each petitioner, demonstrating a commitment to a fair and equitable legal process.
AREEBA , LLYOD LAW COLLEGE, First Year Legal Journalism intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments