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 the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Order on Crl. Misc. Suspension of Order of Conviction Application No. 3 of 2022 dated 18.11.2022

1. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The Suspension of Order of Conviction Application No. 3 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant-Vikram Singh Saini@ Vikram Saini with the following prayers:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend/stay the order of conviction dated 11.10.2022 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge MP/MLA Court, Court No.4, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 1172/2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Dharamveer and others) arising out of case crime no. 407 of 2013, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353, 186, 504, 506 IPC and section 7 of Crl. L.A. Act, P.S. Jansath, Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of present appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

or pass any such order/or further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper otherwise the appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss."

3. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgement and order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge MP/MLA Court, Court No. 4, Muzaffar Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 1172 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Dharmveer and others) Case Crime No. 407 of 2013, P.S.-Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. to undergo 01 year imprisonment, under Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to 02 months additional imprisonment and under Sections 336 r/w 149 I.P.C. to undergo 02 months imprisonment, under Section 353 I.P.C. to undergo 01 month imprisonment, under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo 01 year imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo 02 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo 02 months additional imprisonment and under Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act to undergo 06 months imprisonment. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been given. All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The said appeal has been admitted and the lower court records have been summoned vide order dated 18.11.2022. The prayer for bail/suspension of sentence has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to be released on bail in the said matter. Subsequently, the present application has been filed with the prayers as quoted above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued while placing para 6 of the affidavit in support of application for suspension of order of conviction that the appellant was convicted merely on the basis of witnesses who were police personnel’s. While placing para 8 of the said affidavit it is argued that the appellant is one of the reputed leaders of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). Further, while placing para 13 of the said affidavit it is argued that the appellant enjoys the majority of voters from his constituency. The general public from his constituency have shown their faith upon appellant twice and elected him M.L.A. in two terms from the same constituency, hence in the interest of general public, execution of order of conviction is liable to be stayed by this Court.

6. It is further argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of political persons of the then ruling Samajwadi Party. It is further argued while placing para 30 of the said affidavit that the appellant was a sitting M.L.A. from Assembly Constituency-15, Khatauli, Muazaffar Nagar. The appellant has been disqualified by the Principal Secretary in compliance of a letter issued by the Election Commission. It is further argued while placing para 31 of the said affidavit that subseq