IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 ELECTION PETITION No. 9 of 2024 KISHORE SAMRITE Versus M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shivendra Pandey with Shri Abhimanyu Chauhan - Advocates for petitioner.

Shri G.S. Baghel with Shri K.K. Raidas - Advocates for respondent 3. Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for respondents

2 & 4.

ORDER Heard on I.A.No.15308/2025, which is an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC filed on behalf of the respondent 3.

2. Supporting the order of rejection of nomination form, learned counsel for the respondent 3 submits that since on the date of submission of nomination form, the petitioner was not eligible, therefore, no illegality is there in the order of rejection and the petitioner has no cause of action to file instant election petition, hence the petition deserves to be rejected/dismissed.

3. This Election Petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging rejection of the petitioner's nomination form.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner submitted his nomination form on

27.10.2023 for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly, which was rejected on 01.11.2023 on the ground that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for a period of five years for the offences under Sections 147, 332/149, 427/149, 435/149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2009.

5. It is also undisputed fact that on the date of submission of nomination form, even though the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court on 01.02.2010, but vide final judgment dated 06.05.2024, Criminal Appeal No.27/2010 filed by the petitioner had been dismissed, however in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, sentence of the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 04.11.2024.

6. In the present case, only point for consideration is as to whether upon suspension of sentence, the petitioner was eligible to submit nomination form to contest the election, but even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the order rejecting petitioner's nomination form.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of K. Prabhakaran vs.

P. Jayarajan, AIR 2005 SC 688 = 2005(1) SCC 754 held as under :-

"41. The correct position of law is that nomination of a person disqualified within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the RPA on the date of scrutiny of nominations under Section 36(2)(a) shall be liable to be rejected as invalid and such decision of the returning officer cannot be held to be illegal or ignored merely because the conviction is set aside or so altered as to go out of the ambit of Section 8(3) of the RPA consequent upon a decision of a subsequent date in a criminal appeal or revision.

42. What is relevant for the purpose of Section 8(3) is the actual period of imprisonment which any person convicted shall have to undergo or would have undergone consequent upon the sentence of imprisonment pronounced by the Court and that has to be seen by reference to the date of scrutiny of nominations or date of election. All other factors are irrelevant. A person convicted may have filed an appeal. He may also have secured an order suspending execution of the sentence or the order appealed against under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. But that again would be of no consequence. A Court of appeal is empowered under Section 389 to order that pending an appeal by a convicted person the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or bond. What is suspended is not the conviction or sentence; it is only the execution of the sentence or order which is suspended. It is suspended and not obliterated. It w