IMPORTANT POINT
The suspension of a conviction is an exception and not a rule, requiring a strong prima facie case and consideration of the broader implications for the electoral process and public trust in governance.

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

1. By this application, being moved under Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/original accused No.1 (the accused) seeks stay to judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.147/2002.

The accused has challenged the said judgment before learned Sessions Judge at Nagpur by preferring an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.397/2023.

The accused has filed an application, before learned Sessions Judge at Nagpur for grant of stay to the said conviction, which has been rejected by order passed below Exhibit-4 dated 30.12.2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.K.Mishra for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri Siddharth Dave assisted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B.Jawade for the State.

3. The application is filed on grounds that learned Sessions Judge, without evaluating facts of the case, passed a mechanical order and rejected the application seeking stay to the judgment and order of conviction. No prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the instant application is allowed and the execution of the sentence imposed upon the accused has already been suspended by this court. Now, it is well settled position that suspension of sentence under Section 389(2) of the Code Act till then order of conviction still continues to be operate and, therefore, if the conviction is not stayed, the applicant would continue to render disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (the R.P. Act). Further ground is that, if ramification of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the R.P. Act, which is wide ranging, is not considered, it would not only affect rights of the accused to continue in public life but also affect rights of the people, who voted for the accused to represent their constituency.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.K.Mishra, submitted that the accused is a Senior Member of the Indian National Congress and Former Cabinet Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. He was also a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. He was elected in the year 1992 as a Member of Nagpur Zilla Parishad. In the year 1995, he was first time elected as a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and continued, till December 2023 i.e. till the date of his disqualification due to the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The accused is arraigned as an accused in Crime No.101/2002 on an allegation that he entered into a conspiracy with other co-accused and misappropriated funds of the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited (the NDCC Bank) to the tune of Rs.117.51 crores under a pretext of investment made by the NDCC Bank in the Government Securities through private brokers viz. Home Trade Limited; Century Dealers, Giltage Management; Indramani Merchants, and Syndicate Management Services, who in turn have misappropriated funds of the NDCC Bank by not purchasing the Government Securities in favour of the NDCC Bank. After recording evidence adduced, Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.10.00 lacs for the offence punishable under Sections 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 406 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence is awarded. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 468 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2.00 lacs, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sente