Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Rahul Gandhi – Petitioner
VERSUS
Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8644 of 20231
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 499 – Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Section 8 – Stay on conviction – Defamation case –
Trial Judge, in order passed by him, has awarded maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years – Except admonition given to appellant by Supreme Court in contempt proceedings no other reason has been assigned by Trial Judge while imposing maximum sentence of two years – It is only on account of maximum sentence of two years imposed by Trial Judge, provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Representation of People Act, 1950 have come into play – Had sentence been even a day lesser, provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Act would not have been attracted – Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why he found it necessary to impose maximum sentence of two years – These aspects have not even been touched in their orders by Appellate Court and High Court – At the same time, alleged utterances by appellant are not in good taste – A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches – Appellant ought to have been more careful while making public speech – Ramification of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Act are wide-ranging – They not only affect right of appellant to continue in public life but also affect right of electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency – Order of conviction during pendency of present appeal stayed – However, pendency of present appeal would not come in way of Appellate Court in proceeding further with appeal – Appeal would be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by Single Judge of the High Court dismissing revision petition, which was in turn filed challenging the order of Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting prayer for stay of conviction.
Findings of Court:
May be, had Judgment of the Apex Court in contempt proceedings come prior to the speech made by appellant, appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by Trial Judge.
Parties would be at liberty to approach Appellate Court for expeditious disposal of appeal, which request would be considered by it, on its own merits.
Result : Appeal allowed (Impliedly). Conviction stayed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, on the question of interim protection.
3. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision petition, which was in turn filed challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting the prayer for stay of conviction.
4. The appeal filed by the present appellant challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the leaned Trial Judge is pending before the Appellate Court. The arguments advanced by both Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, touch the merits of the matter. We, therefore, refrain from observing anything about the said arguments, inasmuch as it may adversely affect the rights of either of the parties in the appeal which is pending before the learned Appellate Court.
5. Insofar as grant of stay of conviction is concerned, we have considered certain factors. The sentence for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) is simple imprisonment for two years or fine or both. The learned Trial Judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by this Court in contempt proceedings [Contempt Petition (Crl) No.3/2019 in Yashwant Sinha and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338] no other reason has been assigned by the learned Trial Judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned Trial Judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted.
6. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years.
7. Though the learned Appellate Court and the learned High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, these aspects have not even been touched in their orders.
8. No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. However, as has been observed by this Court while accepting affidavit of the appellant herein in aforementioned contempt proceedings, the appellant herein ought to have been more careful while making the public speech. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech made by the appellant, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge.
9. We are of the considered view that the ramification of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency.
10. We are of the considered view, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal.
11. We, therefore, stay the order of conviction during the pendency of the present appe
(1) Defamation case – A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches.
Suspension of conviction may occur only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when significant injustice would result; the right to contest elections is not fundamental but statutory.
The distinction between suspension of sentence and stay of conviction is critical; the latter requires exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious offences.
Suspension of a sentence does not equate to a stay of conviction; a convicted public servant cannot retain their position.
The appellate court can suspend a conviction if it leads to irreversible consequences, requiring careful consideration of the case's specific facts.
Conviction may be stayed if it leads to significant disqualification consequences, protecting the appellant's rights pending appeal.
The power to suspend a conviction should be exercised in rare cases only, and disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is not a sufficient ground for suspension of t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
