Jaipal vs State of Rajasthan - 2009 Supreme(Raj) 2378

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2378

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Jaipal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 681 of 2008 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2008.
Decided On : 21-10-2009

Advocates:
For the Applicant:Mr. Aehish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Party: Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION - [SECTION 389 CR.P.C.] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [CONTESTING FORTHCOMING ELECTIONS] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE] - [DISTINCTION] - [GROUNDS FOR STAY OF CONVICTION] - [CORRUPTION CHARGES] - [PUBLIC SERVANTS] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [PUBLIC INTEREST] - [MORAL TURPITUDE] - [COMPANIES ACT] - [DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS] - [INTERIM STAY ORDER] - [SCOPE AND EFFECT] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [ELECTION PETITION] - [CONTESTING ELECTIONS] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [SERIOUS OFFENCES] - [MURDER] - [BAIL] - [CONSIDERATIONS] - [PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [PUBLIC POLICY] - [DISABILITY OF CONVICTION] - [APPEAL] - [REVISION] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [SHAREHOLDERS' INTEREST] - [BUSINESS OF COMPANY] - [RARE CASES] - [NON-OPERATIVE CONVICTION] - [PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION] - [COURT'S POWER TO STAY CONVICTION] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [SERIOUS OFFENCES] - [ELECTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES] - [CORRUPTION OFFENCES] - [PUBLIC SERVANTS] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [PUBLIC INTEREST] - [MORAL TURPITUDE] - [COMPANIES ACT] - [DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS] - [INTERIM STAY ORDER] - [SCOPE AND EFFECT] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [ELECTION PETITION] - [CONTESTING ELECTIONS] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [SERIOUS OFFENCES] - [MURDER] - [BAIL] - [CONSIDERATIONS] - [PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [PUBLIC POLICY] - [DISABILITY OF CONVICTION] - [APPEAL] - [REVISION] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [SHAREHOLDERS' INTEREST] - [BUSINESS OF COMPANY] - [RARE CASES] - [NON-OPERATIVE CONVICTION] - [PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION] - [COURT'S POWER TO STAY CONVICTION] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION] - [SERIOUS OFFENCES] - [ELECTION] - [DISQUALIFICATION] - [REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951] - [STAY OF CONVICTION] - [EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES]
Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Jaipal, filed a Criminal Misc. Stay Application seeking a stay of the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tijara for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 307 IPC. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to two years RI, one year RI, three years RI, and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default of two months RI, and six years RI and a fine of Rs. 5000, with a default of two months RI, respectively. The applicant argued that the conviction would disqualify him from contesting the forthcoming elections and that staying the conviction was in the interest of justice.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the applicant had not presented a strong case for staying the conviction. The court noted that the applicant had been convicted of serious offences and that the law prohibits individuals convicted of such offences from contesting elections. The court also observed that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a stay of the conviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicant had presented a strong case for staying the conviction. 2. Whether the applicant's conviction would disqualify him from contesting the forthcoming elections. 3. Whether staying the conviction was in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the following principles in reaching its decision: 1. The power to stay a conviction is limited to exceptional cases and should be exercised cautiously. 2. In cases involving serious offences, the court should consider the nature of the accusation, the manner in which the crime was committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail. 3. When a public servant is convicted of corruption, the court should not suspend the conviction even if the sentence is suspended. 4. The court may stay a conviction if the convicted person demonstrates exceptional circumstances and if staying the conviction is in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's application for a stay of conviction, holding that the applicant had not presented a strong case for staying the conviction and that the law prohibits individuals convicted of serious offences from contesting elections.

JUDGMENT

1. - The applicant Jaipal filed this Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 681 of 2008 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2008 under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for staying judgment of conviction dated 1.3.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tijara, Distt. Alwar in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2007 (62/2004) convicting the accused applicant for offence under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him for Two years RI, One Year RI, Three years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000, in default two months RI and Six years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of fine two months RI respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the applicant along with other co-appellants was admitted by this Court on 12.3.2008. Along with the appeal No. 255 of 2008, the applicant and the co- applicants filed criminal misc. suspension of sentence application, which was registered as Application No. 288 of 2008. Prayer clause in the application reads as under :

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept this application for suspension of sentence and release the accused-petitioners on bail during the pendency of the appeal and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners may kindly be suspended till the disposal of this appeal or any appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the accused-petitioners may kindly be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. On the application for suspension of sentence this Court passed following order on 26.3.2008:

mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks izkFkZuk ij lquk x;kA ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh v'ouh xxZ us izdV fd;k fd os bl izdj.k ls viuk odkyrukek okfil fy;s tkus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; fu;e ds fu;e 311(3) ds rgr ,d izek.k i= izLrqr dj ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k vUoh{kk ds nkSjku tekur ij Fks vkSj vc U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSA mDr rF;kssa dks e/;utj j[krs gq, eSa izkFkhZx.k ds n.Mkns'k dks vihy ds fuLrkj.k rd LFkfxr j[kuk mi;qZDr le>rk gwaA vr% izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k Jhd`".kk] n;kjke] jkesgj] gjhfd'ku ,oa t;iky iq=ku dqUnu] tkfr vghj] fuoklh [kkuiqj] iqfyl Fkkuk fHkokM+h ftyk vyoj dks vij lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] QkLV Vs~d] frtkjk ds lS'ku izdj.k la[;k 126@2007] (62@2004) esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 1-3-2008 ds }kjk nh x;h ltk dks vihy ds fuLrkj.k rd LFkfxr j[ks tkus dk vkns'k bl 'krZ ij fn;k tkrk gS fd os ipkl gtkj :i;s dh jkf'k dk Lo;a dk cU/ki= ,oa iPphl iPphl gtkj :i;s dh jkf'k dh nks tekur fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh larqf"V ij is'k dj rLnhd djkos fd os bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad 30-4-2008 dks ,oa blds i'pkr~ cqyk;s tkus ij mifLFkr gksaxsA

3. Now filing the present application No. 681 of 2008, the applicant Jaipal prayed as under :

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to allow this application. The impugned judgment of conviction may kindly be stayed during pendency the annexed appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

Any other appropriate orders/ directions which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble appellant applicant."

4. This application was presented before this Court on 24.7.2008. One way or the other the application could not be heard. Arguments on this application were concluded on 31.8.2009.

5. Now the core question to be considered in this case is that pending the appeal filed by the applicant before this Court, the judgment of conviction dated 1.3.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tijara convicting the accused applicant for offence under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 307 I.P.C. can be stayed by this Court to enable the appellant applicant to contest the forthcoming elections.

6. In the application the applicant given out that the complainant party is having grudge against the accused applicant and his family members due to political rivalry and land dispute. The members of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2378

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHMahesh Chandra Sharma, J.Jaipal - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 681 of 2008 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2008.Decided On : 21-10-2009

Cases Referred (11)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Jaipal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 681 of 2008 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2008.
Decided On : 21-10-2009