IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension of conviction and sentence – Court ought to consider application seeking suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind relevant judgments rendered by Supreme Court and in accordance with law.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The Union Territory Administration of Lakshadweep and the complainant have preferred these appeals assailing the Order dated 25.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.49/2023 by the Kerala High Court. The said application was filed by the first respondent herein seeking suspension of his conviction vide judgment and sentence passed in SC No.1/2017 on the file of Sessions Court, Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. By the said judgment dated 11.01.2023, the first respondent was found guilty of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC, 1860”, for short) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for periods ranging from one month to ten years. The sentence of ten years imprisonment was imposed for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the appellant Union Territory Administration of Lakshadweep drew our attention to the impugned order, particularly paragraphs 14 onwards to contend that the High Court has misdirected itself while considering the application seeking suspension of conviction as the High Court has been carried away by the fact that the first respondent is an elected Member of Parliament and at the same time has lost sight of the fact that he has been convicted of serious offences by the Sessions Court.

4. It was further submitted that the High Court was not right in considering the case of the first respondent purely from the point of view of the office held by the first respondent and not as an ordinary convict. It was submitted that merely because the office of Member of Parliament held by the first respondent would stand vacated, because of Sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court ought not to have considered the fact that the vacancy which had arisen would result in a fresh election to be held which would result in expenses and therefore the first respondent was entitled to a stay of his conviction. The High Court also ought not to have taken into consideration, the aspect of representation of the first respondent as the Member of Parliament of the concerned constituency and thereby granted the relief of suspension of his conviction.

5. It was further pointed out that while there is a reference to the judgments of this Court with regard to the approach to be made by the High Court while suspending the conviction, the High Court has not discussed the said judgments and has instead proceeded only on the basis that the first respondent herein being a representative of the constituency and a Member of Parliament ought to have been granted the stay of conviction. It was submitted that the approach of the High Court is incorrect, and thus, the impugned order calls for interference and setting aside by this Court by dismissing the application filed by the first respondent seeking stay of his conviction.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the complainant adopted the submissions made by the learned ASG and also contended that this is not a case where the first respondent was entitled to the suspension of conviction having regard to the serious nature of offences proved against him and order of conviction and sentence passed against the first respondent herein.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Dr. Singhvi, appearing for the first respondent supported the impugned order and contended that the first respondent is a responsible Member of Parliament representing Lakshadweep constituency and the reasons assigned by the High Court are not at all incorrect as any vacancy caused on account of an order of suspension of conviction not being granted bearing in mind Sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act would adversely affect the electorate of the constituency which would be unrepres