Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31634
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
MADHU KODA – Appellant
Versus
STATE THRU CBI – Respondent
CRL.A.-1186/2017
The court emphasized that a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act leads to disqualification from elections, and suspension of such conviction requires exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389(1) and Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d)(ii), 13(1)(d)(iii), and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Application for suspension of conviction - Applicant convicted for corruption-related offences and seeks suspension to contest elections - Court finds no change in circumstances or law to warrant suspension - Previous applications for stay of conviction dismissed - Court emphasizes the need for exceptional circumstances for granting such relief. (Paras 1, 5, 9, 14, 46, 51)
(B) Election Law - Disqualification due to conviction - Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conviction leads to disqualification from contesting elections for six years - Court reiterates that disqualification is a statutory consequence of conviction. (Paras 9, 40, 45)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant was convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, sentenced to imprisonment and fines, and seeks to suspend the conviction to contest upcoming elections. The conviction was upheld despite previous applications for stay being dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found no new grounds or changes in law to justify the suspension of the conviction, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Issues: The main issues were whether there were sufficient grounds to suspend the conviction and the implications of the Applicant's disqualification from contesting elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or changes in law that would justify a stay of conviction, reaffirming the principle that disqualification from elections is a statutory consequence of conviction.
Result: Application for suspension of conviction dismissed.
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
CRL.M.(BAIL) 725/2024
1. The present Application under Section 389 (1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the Applicant seeking suspension of operation of Order of Conviction dated 13.12.2017.
2. The Applicant had been convicted vide Judgment dated 13.12.2017 and Order on Sentence dated 16.12.2017 in CC No. 79/2016 arising out of FIR RC No. 0219/2012 (E) 0012 dated 03.09.2012 for the following offence: -
(i) For the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC , 1908”) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act, 1988”) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months,
(ii) For the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months,
(iii) For the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months,
3. The Applicant along with the Appeal filed an Application CRL.M. (Bail) 2274/2017 under Section 389 (1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C ., 1973”) dated 22.12.2017 seeking stay of fine during the pendency of the present Appeal, which was allowed vide Order dated 22.01.2018.
4. The Applicant also filed the CRL.M.A. 2273/2017 and CRL.M.A. 38740/2019 seeking stay of operation of the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge. However, these Applications were dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 22.05.2020 by placing reliance on the decision in K.C. Sareen vs. CBI Chandigarh , (2001) 6 SCC 584 ., wherein the Apex court held that even though the Applicant had a prima facie case, but was not persuaded to stay the Order of Conviction.
5. The Applicant by way of present Application, has sought the stay of Order of Conviction afresh, which has been necessitated on account of change in the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Afjal Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 2 SCC 187 .
6. It is asserted that the Appeal is pending adjudication for over seven years and on account of voluminous nature of the case, the Appeal could not be heard. The Applicant has been compelled to again seek the relief of suspension of Order of Conviction after a gap of four years since the dismissal of first Application inasmuch as he is desirous of contesting Elections of 6th Jharkhand State Assembly which is likely to be held in the month of November-December, 2024 as the term of the 5th Jharkhand Legislative Assembly shall be coming to an end on 05.01.2025.
7. The Applicant is a Scheduled Tribe belonging to „Ho‟ Community of Kolhan Region of Jharkhand, which is one of the most backward regions of India. The „Ho‟ Community and other tribal and non-tribal Communities of the area who closely identify themselves with the Applicant, have been approaching him since he has been representing them in State Assembly and in Parliament for more than two decades.
8. Furthermore, the „Ho‟ Community of Scheduled Tribe is 10.7% of the total Scheduled Tribe population of Jharkhand, as per the Census of 2011. The Applicant has been taking up the cause of people of his region in Legislative Assem
