IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Dilip Ray - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Cr.A. 533 of 2020
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Conviction Suspension - Contesting Elections - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act - [Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act] - The court discussed the power to suspend implementation of the sentence or the order of conviction under appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, emphasizing the factors to be considered for suspension of a conviction, including the individual's criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence, and its wider social impact, while simultaneously considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The court referred to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Afjal Ansari and emphasized that irreversible consequences are a key consideration for suspension of conviction. The court also distinguished between cases where irreversible damage would be caused if the conviction is not suspended and cases where such damage can be compensated. The court ultimately allowed the application and directed that the conviction of the applicant shall stand stayed during the pendency of the present appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the allocation of a coal mining area in Jharkhand to a private company, leading to allegations of corruption against certain public servants. The applicant, a former Minister of State for Coal, was convicted for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. He sought suspension of conviction to contest upcoming elections.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application and directed that the conviction of the applicant shall stand stayed during the pendency of the present appeal, considering the irreversible consequences that would be caused if the conviction is not suspended, particularly in light of the applicant's long political career and age.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should suspend the conviction of the applicant to allow him to contest upcoming elections, considering the irreversible consequences and the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider irreversible consequences, the individual's criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence, and its wider social impact, while simultaneously considering the facts and circumstances of the case when deciding on the suspension of a conviction. The court also distinguished between cases where irreversible damage would be caused if the conviction is not suspended and cases where such damage can be compensated.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed that the conviction of the applicant shall stand stayed during the pendency of the present appeal.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
CRL.M.A. 7631/2024 (for suspension of order of conviction dated 06.10.2020)
1. The instant application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant/appellant seeking suspension of order of conviction dated 06.10.2020, on the ground that the present applicant has to contest upcoming elections of Odisha Legislative Assembly, 2024.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that this case pertains to allocation of 105.153 hectares of non-nationalized, abandoned coal mining area in district Giridih, Jharkhand in favour of M/s. Castron Technologies Ltd. by 14th Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal, Government of India. It was the case of the prosecution that after the allegations of corruption came to be leveled against certain public servants, an examination on the allocation of various coal blocks to private companies was started by the Central Vigilance Commission. Thereafter, the Central Vigilance Commission had made a reference to Central Bureau of Investigation after finding sufficient material. The Central Bureau of Investigation had initially conducted certain preliminary enquiries in the matter.However, when sufficient incriminating material qua such allocation of coal blocks came on record during the course of enquiry warranting detailed investigation, then a number of regular cases were registered including the present case against company M/s CTL, company M/s CML, their directors and also against unknown public servants and private persons for the offences under Section 120-B/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, CBI had filed a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against six accused persons including the present applicant Dilip Ray, who was the then Minister of State for Coal, for the offences under Section 120-B/420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The present applicant was convicted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.10.2020 for offence punishable under Sections 120B/409/420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Actand was sentenced to undergo sentence of 3 years and payment of fine in Case bearing No.CBI/291/2019, arising out of FIR bearing RC No.221/2014 of 0002 dated 07.01.2014, registered with CBI, New Delhi.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant/appellant is seeking the relief qua suspension of order of conviction which was not pressed initially in view of listing of the appeal for final disposal vide order dated 27.10.2024. However, in view of the change in circumstances; i.e. non listing of captioned appeal for final disposal despite passage of more than three years and the impending National General Elections and Odisha State Assembly Elections wherein the applicant/appellant is aspiring to contest, the present application has been preferred. It is argued that the applicant/appellant, presently aged 71 years, is a distinguished public figure with a long-standing record of dedicated service to the state of Odisha and the nation at large. The political journey of the applicant began in 1985 when he was elected as the chairman of the then Rourkela Notified Council, showcasing his early commitment to public service, and this continued for more than a period of 35 years wherein the applicant had held various ministerial portfolios in the Government of India and the State Government of Odisha. It is further argued that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant, and he will suffer irreversible and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner in the event he is denied the prayed relief. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant places reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Afjal Ansari v. State of Ut
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when deciding on the suspension of a conviction, the court should consider irreversible consequences, the individual's criminal antecedents, t....
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 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....
Suspension of conviction in criminal cases, especially for corruption, is only permissible in exceptional circumstances where irreversible harm can be shown.
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the appellate court, pending an appeal by a convicted person and for reasons to be recorded in writing to order that the execution of a s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the appellant's fair chance of success in the appeal against the conviction and the potential injustice of disqualifying him f....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.