Persons Charged With Crime Ought To Be Disqualified From Contesting Elections: Allahabad HC Rejects Ex-MLA Irfan Solanki’s Plea For Stay On Conviction
The Allahabad High Court rejected Former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki’s petition seeking stay on conviction in an arson case. The High Court reiterated that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices.
The Criminal Appeal before the High Court was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/ Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 147, 436/149, 427/149, 323/149, 506, 504 IPC, by which the appellants had been convicted and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The maximum sentence awarded to Solanki was seven years.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta & Justice Surendra Singh-I said, “In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is true that this Court has the power to stay the conviction, however, such power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances in a case where the Court is convinced for not staying the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.”
Senior Advocate Imran Ullah represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
It was the case of the appellants that Appellant No. 1 Irfan Solanki was a Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2007 from Arya Nagar Constituency and in the year 2012, 2017 and 2022 was a Member of Legislative Assembly from Shishamau Kanpur Nagar and on account of political rivalry, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. It is further submitted that he had been serving the public at large for the last 17 years and was also a member of Parliamentary Research.
On account of being convicted in the instant case, the appellant No. 1 has been declared disqualified for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly as per Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951 and he has been declared disqualified for further election.
For the respondent, AGA submitted that the appellants are involved in heinous offences of arson and setting on fire the hutment belonging to the informant and further they also have long criminal antecedents of 17 cases and 6 cases respectively and in some of the cases they have not yet been granted bail.
The Bench placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravikant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported in (2007) 1 SCC 673 wherein it was held that an order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases.
The High Court also pointed out that the power to stay the execution of sentence and power to stay the conviction stand on different pedestal, for the stay of execution of sentence only prima facie case against the appellants is to be looked into, however, his conviction is not liable to be stayed on this ground alone. The appellant after holding full fledged trial, has been convicted of the offence charged with.
The Bench took note of the contention that one of the consequences of the conviction was that the appellant had been disqualified for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly as per Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and had further been disqualified for further elections.
On this aspect, the Bench said, “Representative of people should be a man of clear antecedents. It has often been seen that large number of persons with criminal antecedents or who are charged with heinous crimes stand for and are elected to Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament.”
Noting that the wider opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices, the Bench said, “...we are of the opinion that the appellants, who have been charged with serious offences and having long criminal history, in which, their bails have also been rejected by this Court and even by the Apex Court, we do not find it to be a case of stay of conviction.”
Keeping in view the wider social impact for staying the conviction, the Bench rejected the petition and held, “...we are of the opinion that merely by pleading that appellant No. 1 by his conviction stands disqualified as per the Representation of People Act, 1951, is no ground to suspend the conviction.”
Cause Title: Irfan Solanki And Another v. State of U.P [Case No. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6659 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner:Senior Advocate Imran Ullah, Advocate Upendra Upadhyay
Respondent: Government Advocate