JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant criminal revision filed under S. 397 CrPC, challenge has been laid to order dated 12.2.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, in an application No.21/2021 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 21-NL/4 of 2021, titled Pardeep Chaudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned court below though suspended the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 14.1.2021 in Cr. Case No. 30/2 of 2013 titled state of HP vs. Mahesh Kumar and others, but rejected his prayer to stay the conviction recorded by learned court below in the aforesaid case.

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that a police challan under Ss. 143, 341, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 324 and 435 IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, came to be presented in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Nalagarh, District Solan, against the accused persons including the petitioner, who at the relevant time was an elected member of legislative assembly in the State of Haryana.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, found the petitioner and other accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 143, 341, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 324 and 435 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as under:

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh/Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Alongwith aforesaid appeal, petitioner also filed an application under Section 389(2) CrPC praying therein to stay/suspend the sentence and conviction imposed/recorded by learned trial Court during the pendency of the appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge below, vide order dated 12.2.2021, though suspended the sentence imposed by learned trial Court, subject to petitioner’s depositing entire fine amount, but refused to stay the conviction. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to stay the conviction after setting aside aforesaid order passed by learned first appellate court to the extent prayer of the petitioner for staying the conviction has been declined.

5. Mr. B.C. Negi and Mr. N.S. Chandel, Learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate, representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by first appellate court below rejecting the prayer to stay the conviction deserves to be set aside, being totally contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned senior counsel further argued that the court below, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to stay the conviction, has failed to take note of the consequences which will follow in the event of conviction being not stayed. They further stated that on account of judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, petitioner has been rendered disqualified to remain as a Member of Legislative Assembly in terms of S.8(3)of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He submitted that the refusal to stay the conviction by learned court below w