Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ker) 787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. Nagaresh, J.
Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep Represented by the Its Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala and ors. – Respondents
CRL.M.APPL.No.1 of 2023 IN CRL.A NO. 49 OF 2023
Decided On : 03-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/S. P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), V.S.Thoshin, Satheesh Mohanan, P.A.Meera, Sreejith S. Nair, Colin Antony Dcruz, Sekhar G. Thampi, Girisankar Jyothikumar Sheena, Reshma M.S, Nikita J. Mendez, Sruthy N. Bhat, Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar
For the Respondent: M/s. A.R.L.Sundaresan, Assistant Solicitor General Of India,, S.Manu, Deputy Solicitor General Of India, Sajithkumar.V, M/S. B.Raman Pillai(Sr.), Ajit G Anjarlekar, G.P.Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B.,

Suspension of Conviction

Headnote:
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The Court referred to various judgments, including Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, Sareen v. CBI, and State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, to establish the legal principles governing the suspension of conviction. The Court held that the power to suspend conviction should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional cases where irreversible damage or disqualification would occur.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were found guilty of multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners filed an appeal seeking suspension of their conviction. The High Court suspended the conviction of the second petitioner due to exceptional circumstances. The UT Administration of Lakshadweep filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered all aspects of the case and relevant judgments in deciding the application for suspension of conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which allows for the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The Court referred to various judgments to establish the legal principles governing the suspension of conviction. The Court held that an order of conviction can be suspended in exceptional cases where the convicted person would suffer irreversible damage or disqualification under another statute. However, the Court emphasized that the power to suspend conviction should be exercised cautiously and only in rare cases. The Court also considered the impact of suspending convictions on public confidence in the justice system.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered all aspects of the case and relevant judgments in deciding the application for suspension of conviction. The Court emphasized that the power to suspend conviction should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional cases where irreversible damage or disqualification would occur. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Result: The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' request for suspension of their conviction. The suspension of sentence for the other accused persons would continue pending final disposal of the appeal.

ORDER :

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in SC No.1/2017 on the files of the Court of Sessions, Kavarathi, were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 324, 342, 307 and 506 read with Section 148 IPC and are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various periods, the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years awarded under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC being the longest period of sentence.

2. This Court admitted Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2023 filed by the petitioners/accused. In Crl.M.Appl. No.1/2023 filed by the petitioners/accused for suspension of conviction and sentence, a learned Single Judge of this Court, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 25.01.2023, took a view that the case of the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused falls within the category of rare and exceptional circumstances, that the ramifications of not suspending the conviction of the 2nd petitioner are enormous and hence the conviction and sentence imposed upon the 2nd accused should be suspended until disposal of the appeal.

3. The U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep filed SLP (Crl.) No.1644 of 2023 invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court granted special leave to appeal. The Appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.2501 of 2023. After considering the submissions made on behalf of either side, the Apex Court held as follows:

We have considered these particular submissions in light of the impugned order, bearing in mind the position of law on the aspect of the stay of conviction of a person who has been convicted for certain offences.

It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein is a Member of Parliament representing the constituency of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and has had the benefit of the order of stay of conviction passed by the High Court. However, we find that the High Court has not considered the position of law in its entirety as it emerges on the basis of judgments that have been rendered by this Court with regard to the manner in which an application seeking a stay of conviction has to be considered. We also find that the High Court has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the first respondent herein being a Member of the Parliament and a representative of his constituency, any order of suspension of membership which is consequential upon conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted in so far as the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is concerned which would result in enormous expenses. We find that the said aspect need not have been the only aspect which should have weighed with the High Court.

We find that the High Court ought to have considered the application seeking the suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind the relevant judgments rendered by this Court and in accordance with law.

On this short ground alone, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the application filed by the first respondent herein seeking suspension of conviction.

The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that all contentions raised between the parties are kept open to be raised before this Court and all observations made in the Order are only for the purpose of disposing of the appeal and remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the application for suspension of conviction.

4. The Senior Counsel Sri. Kapil Sibal assisted by Sri.Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the counsel for the petitioners/appellants, urged that there is no impediment for the appellate court to suspend the order of conviction and that an order of conviction can be suspended taking into consideration the nature of the controversy and impact of an order of conviction on the person. Wherever the consequence of an order of conviction is irreversible, the court has to consider the question of suspension of order of conviction.

5. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Cour