Conviction Cannot Be Stayed Merely Because There Is Likelihood Of Getting Candidature In Elections: Bombay HC
|The Bombay High Court rejected the application seeking stay on conviction of accused who were held guilty for disrupting the public transport system and damaging public property in the year 2008. The applicants were desirous of contesting State Legislative Assembly Elections.
The applicants had approached the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court by filing an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for relief of stay to conviction. All the applicants were convicts in a Sessions Case rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-1 recording guilt for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 336, 341, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed, “This Court is not convinced about the existence of an exceptional case or case to be rarest of the rare one necessitating indulgence to stay the very conviction. None of the grounds taken recourse to and put forth in support of relief are potent or so exceptional so as to entitle applicants for relief of stay to conviction.”
Advocates R. R. Karpe represented the Applicant while APP N. B. Patil represented the Respondent-State.
The applicants submitted that the applicants/original accused persons are prominent figures of a political party and due to conviction rendered by the trial Judge, they both have incurred disqualification from contesting elections by virtue of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It was emphasized that, off late, State Legislative Assembly Elections have been declared and notified. The applicants are keen on contesting the elections and their candidature is almost considered and finalized by the political party. It was pointed out that there is absence of direct evidence regarding their involvement. It was argued that roles are not crystallized, much less, there is any evidence of involvement of present applicants.
Opposing the relief of stay on conviction, the Respondent-State contended that guilt has been recorded upon full-fledged trial and on complete appreciation, finding convincing and cogent evidence regarding involvement of applicants.
The facts of the case suggested that two applicants (mother and son) were arraigned as accused alongwith others. The charge was that in the year 2008, Maharashtra State Transport bus was obstructed by 20 to 25 political activists who were said to be armed with stones, sticks, wooden poles, iron rod etc. Damage was caused to a bus as well as a vehicle of the Municipal Corporation. According to the informant, the aggressive activists were led by present applicants. Some police personnel were also reported to be injured
On the issue of stay on conviction, the Bench affirmed the view of the Top Court in various judgments that relief of stay to conviction is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. That power to stay conviction is by way of an exception. Before such power is exercised, the appellate court must be convinced and made aware of the consequences which would ensue if conviction are not stayed. “In short, it has to be demonstrated that, if relief of stay is not granted, the applicant would suffer such irreparable loss that cannot be made up and the situation cannot be reversed”, it added.
The Bench noted that it is only the aspiration of applicants to contest elections and no concrete material was placed on record to demonstrate that they were chosen as a candidate by a particular political party to contest the election. “Therefore, for such reason also, mere eventuality or likelihood of getting candidature, does not fit in the legal requirements of rarest of the rare case calling upon indulgence of appellate court to stay the very conviction. In a way, present applications are virtually premature”, it said.
Further referring to Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, the Bench held that the Appellate court whose jurisdiction is invoked for granting stay to the very conviction, has to be necessarily convinced that, exceptional case does exist and that there is impending danger of consequences, which are likely to ensue, are so eminent that relief of stay to conviction is necessary.
“Applicants who are politically ambitious and keen on becoming public representatives, are precisely held guilty for disrupting the public transport system and damaging public property itself”, it held.
The Bench also noted that the applicants were held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 336, 341, 427 of IPC as well as Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and were sentenced for five years. Thus, in light of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench rejected the application.
Cause Title: Mahesh & Ors. vs. State Of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation- 2024:BHC-AUG:26216-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R. R. Karpe, Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Abhaysinh K. Bhosle
Respondent: APP N. B. Patil