1996 INSC 0729
                                                     Satvir Singh

                                                           Vs

                                                 Baldeva and Others

  Review Petition No. 884 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995 with Crl. MPs. Nos. 1979,
                                           1978, 1480 and 1981 of 1996

                                          (G. N. Ray, B. L. Hansaria JJ)

                                                      24.04.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. This review petition and other miscellaneous applications in connection with the review petition
have been filed out of time. It has been filed by Satbir Singh, the maternal grandfather of PW 6
Satish, seeking for review of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995.

2. In our view, the review application is not maintainable. In Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of
India ((1992) 4 SCC 653 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 22) this Court has held that a third party has no locus
standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on the averments
of violation of their fundamental rights.

3. In State of Karnataka v. T.R. Dhananjaya ((1995) 6 SCC 254) it has been held that the review
petition filed by the State seeking review of the conviction and sentence of one of the officers of the
State was not maintainable. The petitioner in this review petition has relied on the decision of this
Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India ((1981) Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149) and has contended
that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review. Such a contention,
however, cannot be accepted. In S.P. Gupta case ((1981) Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149) the
petitioner was espousing the cause of independence of judiciary. The present petitioner is not
espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the
convicted appellants. The same stands entirely on a different footing and, in our view, the petitioner
has no locus standi to maintain the instant review petition.

4. The review petition and the miscellaneous applications are therefore dismissed.