Supreme Court issued notice to CBI in ‘Shaukat Guru’

A petition which questioned how an accused could be convicted on a charge not framed against him prompted the Supreme Court to issue notices to the Government of Delhi and CBI.

Shaukat Hussain Guru, who faces 10 years in prison in the Parliament attack case, approached the apex court contending his conviction and sentence was “clearly in contravention of the principles of natural justice” as he was convicted under a charge that was never framed against him. The apex court on August 4, 2005, while acquitting him of all the 12 charges under POTA which were upheld by the Delhi High Court, set aside the capital punishment awarded to him. But in the process, the court convicted him under Section 123 (deliberate concealment of facts) of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. The decision came after an inference was drawn from the circumstances that he had knowledge of the conspiracy and the plan to attack Parliament House and yet he failed to inform the nearest magistrate or the police officer of Afzal’s intent. Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, who argued that Guru’s conviction under the said section was also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution showed that “if only a charge had been framed under Section 123 IPC, he would have an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence to show that he had indeed informed a magistrate or a police officer.” According to law, before a person is convicted for a crime, he has to be given an opportunity to defend himself against that allegation by framing a charge and thereafter allowing him to produce defence evidence.

Hearing the brief submissions, the Bench comprising Justices P P Naolekar and R V Raveendran issued notice, seeking replies to be filed on the plea raised before the court. Meanwhile, the court rejected Guru’s curative petition, the last remedy available to a convict to appeal against a judgment in the court of law.

Regional