Ahmadi, J. - (1.) Does a petitioner-third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution culminating in the conviction of the accused have any 'locus standi' to challenge the convict ion and the sentence awarded to the convicts in a petition brought under Art. 32 of the Constitution If the answer to this poser is in the negative this petition must fail on that preliminary ground. Before we proceed to answer the same it would be advantageous to notice a few facts.
(2.) The assassins of General Vaidya were charge-sheeted under Ss. 120B, 302, 307, 465, 468, 471 and 212, I. P.C. read with Ss. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act') and Section 10 of the Passport Act. Five persons besides the absconding accused were put up for trial before the Designated Court, Pune. The Designated Court acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them except accused No.1 Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and accused No. 5 Harjinder Singh. alias Jinda who were convicted for the murder of General Vaidya and for causing bullet injury to his wife Bhanumati. Accused No. 1 was convicted under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and accused No. 5 was convicted under the said two provisions with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The Designated Court, bearing in mind the gravity of the crime came to the conclusion that the crime falls into the category of 'the rarest of rare' and awarded the capital punishment, death penalty, for the murder of General Vaidya and rigorous imprisonment of ten years for the injury caused to his wife Bhanumati. The death penalty was of course subject to confirmation by this Court. The State preferred an appeal insofar as the order of acquittal was concerned but the accused Nos. 1 and 5 did not prefer any appeal against their conviction. However, the entire case was thrown open before this Court in the reference arising from the death sentence imposed on the two convicts by the Designated Court which sentence was subject to confirmation by this Court. This Court on a reassessment of the entire evidence dismissed the State's appeal but affirmed the conviction of the aforesaid two accused and confirmed the death sen- tence for reasons stated in its judgment dated 15th July, 1992.
(3.) On 19th August, 1992, the petitioner filed this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution complaining of violation of Arts. 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. The locus pleaded in paragraph 2 of the petition is as under: "The petitioner is the President of Akali Dal (M) and is an acknowledged political leader and, therefore, is vitally interested in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the same is applied equally, with fairness, equity and good consciousness to all." The main thrust of the petitioner's case (supra) is that once the Designated Court's finding that no case for conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out was affirmed by this Court, tills Court had no jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence as the reference for confirmation could only be disposed of by the High Court of Maharashtra. This Court, avers the petitioner, deviated from this course in the case of the two convicts thereby violating the rule of law as well as Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. Secondly, contends the petitioner, if the case came to be decided by this Court under the TADA Act, since the constitutional validity of that law was under challenge, it was incumbent on this Court to await the Court's adjudication on that point before disposing of the death reference. The petitioner has also questioned this Court's view that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category and hence the sentence of death was justified. Oil this line of reasoning the petitioner seeks certain declarations, namely, (a) that the trial of the two convicts was bad in law and violative of Arts. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution as the Designated Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case on its holding that no offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out (b) the reference to the Supreme Court was bad in law and violative of Arts. 14 and 22 of the Constitution and (c) the sentence imposed by the Designated Court and confirmed by this Court was bad in law and violative of Arts. 21, 22 and 14 of the Constitution.;