Supreme Court Refuses Abdullah Azam Khan's Request to Restrain Trial Court From Passing Conviction Order in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday(October 11) refused to restrain a trial court from passing an order of conviction against Samajwadi Party leader Abdullah Azam Khan in a forgery case. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing Khan’s special leave petition challenging an April 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to stay his conviction in a 15-year-old case that led to his disqualification from the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly in February.Khan was convicted for staging a dharna and blocking traffic on a state highway in the Chhajlet area of Uttar Pradesh’s Moradabad district in 2008, but he has pleaded juvenility in this case, arguing that he was merely accompanying his father. In support of this, he has, among other things, referred to a November 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the disqualification of the former legislator from the 17th Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for not having attained the minimum qualifying age at the time of the election. According to this judgment, at the time of the offence for which he had recently been convicted, Khan was 15 years of age. On the last occasion, to resolve the controversy relating to Khan’s age, the court directed the Rampur district judge to submit a report on the ‘correct date of birth’. This aspect, the court further ordered, may be brought to the notice of the local court trying Khan in the other criminal case for allegedly forging age-proof documents, in order to seek the court's 'necessary indulgence'.During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the bench that despite its order, the local court is continuing to conduct Khan's trial and pressed for it to be restrained from convicting Khan till the final report on his birth date is filed. The senior counsel also strongly protested against the State allegedly taking different positions with respect to the former legislator's age in two different proceedings. He argued -"There are two dates of birth - one is 1990 and the other is 1993. In the other case, the State has taken the position that Khan was born in 1993 and has committed forgery of a passport. In this case, either date would establish the contention of juvenility. But, refusing to rely on any of the dates, the State advocated for a fresh inquiry. If the State accepted the position that they take in the other case, i.e., Khan was born in 1993, the current petition should succeed. How can the State do both things? Therefore, the other matter may be heard but no conviction order should be passed till the report comes in this case. They are hell-bent on convicting him. Heavens are not going to fall if it is [postponed].""It's a completely different proceeding relating to allegations of forgery," Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj said, objecting to Sibal's request. The law officer added, "It's a matter of evidence."When the bench expressed its disinclination to pass any order with respect to the other proceedings, Sibal attempted to persuade it by arguing, "There are two legal principles here. One, can the State, having taken a position in one prosecution, take a different stance in another proceeding? There will also be two different decisions on Khan's date of birth.""This is a special leave petition arising out of a prayer under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a stay of conviction," Justice Mishra pointed out. Justice Sundresh added -"We cannot presuppose a conviction. If there's a conviction, our order will have an impact on it. The decision in the other case will be subject to our ultimate decision.""By then, Khan will be jailed," Sibal exclaimed. While accepting that the scope of the Supreme Court's intervention in this issue was limited, the senior counsel pointed to the power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution. Referring to the factual background of the Supreme Court's November 2022 judgment, he added, "His birth certificate indicated 1993, but when he fought the first election, he claimed that his date of birth was 1991. Your Lordships know that in many cases, people give a different date of birth when taking admission to school.""You can have an example: me," Justice Sundresh remarked, smiling.Sibal continued, "They are now prosecuting me on the basis of this court's judgment. He is now stuck in this. Will Your Lordships not be kind enough to direct the execution of the sentence to be delayed, even if convicted? I am appealing to your conscience. Sometimes law stands in the way of justice. This is that kind of a case.""We cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of the trial court," Justice Sundresh said firmly, before assuring that the controversy relating to Khan's age will be resolved promptly after the district judge's report is filed. Ultimately, the judge pronounced, "We find no reason to issue any interim order at this stage. As per the earlier order, post the main matter after the report on juvenility is...

Supreme Court Refuses Abdullah Azam Khan's Request to Restrain Trial Court From Passing Conviction Order in Forgery Case

Awstika Das

Tags