By Sarita Patnaik, IANS
New Delhi : Is six years too much or too little? More than a week after Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt was jailed after being convicted under the Arms Act in the 1993 Mumbai bombings case, the question continues to be intensely debated in legal circles.
Much like the furious discussions raging amongst fans and concerned citizens on the validity of the anti-terror TADA court’s sentencing of the star for illegally possessing weapons, lawyers are divided over the quantum of punishment.
The star, who had been on bail for the past 12 years, undergone imprisonment for 16 months and is now in a Pune jail, was absolved of terror charges but convicted under the Arms Act for which the minimum sentence is five years’ imprisonment and maximum 10 years.
“The (six years) punishment is not appropriate as Dutt is not a professional criminal and he does not have any criminal antecedents,” advocate D.B. Goswami told IANS.
He said Dutt should not be equated with the militants who had perpetuated the serial blasts in which 257 were killed and more than 800 injured.
According to the criminal lawyer who practises in the Supreme Court, Dutt could have been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. If India has a provision for the release of a person on probation, it should have applied in the case of Dutt who had not committed any crime since his release on bail, Goswami asserted.
His colleague K.K. Patel agreed and said: “The punishment was a bit too harsh.”
The lawyer was of the view that the special Mumbai court should have taken a lenient view and that such stringent punishment was meant for hardcore and regular offenders, which Dutt was not.
It was good that he was not convicted under the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) as the alleged purchase was an “innocent and unintentional” move, said Patel.
On the other side of the divide is lawyer Namita Roy who said firmly: “It was a justified and appropriate sentence which would act as a deterrent to the rich and mighty who think they could take law into their hands.”
She said the judge had taken into consideration the evidence put before him, the situation at the time of the blasts and appropriate law before sentencing the star.
The country, Roy added, should not forget that hundreds of innocent people had been wiped out during the blasts. Dutt should not be released on probation as he was 33 when he allegedly acquired the arms and fully aware of the consequences of possessing such deadly weapons.
Lawyer Najim Waziri, who practises in the Supreme Court, told IANS: “TADA Court Judge P.D. Kode has gone by law. On the basis of his conduct, one can say the judgement appears to be entirely according to law.”
Any leniency to Dutt would have attracted criticism of the judiciary, before which everybody is equal.
“Any relief to Dutt would have implied committing injustice to 95 percent of the convicts who are from the minority community.”
Dutt has challenged his conviction and pleaded for bail in the Supreme Court, which will hear his case on Friday.
If the apex court upholds the TADA court judgement and at the same time gives some relief, it can at the most reduce the six years to five. It can also acquit him of all charges as there was no recovery and the conviction was based on the testimony of other accused, or it could release the actor on probation as he had pleaded for.
(Sarita Patnaik can be contacted at [email protected])