Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. S. Shinde, Abhay Ahuja, JJ
Chandrakant s/o. Baliram Sonawane – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1288 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Chetan C. Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Pravin P. Chavan, Mr. S. S. Hulke
Appellate courts may deny stay of conviction if the applicant fails to show exceptional circumstances or specific consequences from the conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177, 201, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 109, 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) - Conviction and sentence appeal - Applicant convicted with others for various offences, sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a fine - Applicant contests conviction citing absence from critical resolutions and lack of corrupt practices - Court finds involvement demonstrated, denies stay of conviction pending appeal. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Power of appellate court to stay conviction - Must be exercised in exceptional circumstances where failure to do so would lead to injustice - Specific consequences need to be articulated for granting stay. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
Applicant and 50 others convicted for various crimes, applicant contests his role in alleged conspiracy citing lack of involvement in critical resolutions. Contrary evidence presented by prosecution regarding attendance and votes in key decisions.
Findings of Court:
Refusal to grant stay on conviction, supports findings of trial court regarding applicant’s involvement, emphasizes that exceptional circumstances for stay were not demonstrated.
Issues: Determining applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy surrounding the resolutions and justifying the refusal for a stay of conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction citing presented evidence of the applicant’s participation in significant resolutions, denying the stay based on established judicial principles regarding such applications.
Result: Application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final decision concludes the application without stay. (Para 1 , 13 , 16) |
| 2. conviction details and applicant's defense regarding non-involvement. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court's refusal to grant a stay of conviction based on presented evidence. (Para 3 , 12) |
| 4. applicant's qualifications and public service presented as character evidence. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 5. judicial precedent established for staying convictions only in exceptional circumstances. (Para 9 , 10) |
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Dhule in Special Case No. 01 of 2014 a total number of 51 accused including the present applicant were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 177 , 201, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Sections 120-B , 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 13 (1)(c), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period ranging from 5 to 7 years.
3. The present applicant, who is arrayed as accused no.11, is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of 4 years and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (which is stated by learned counsel to be paid by the applicant). The appeal filed by the applicant is already admitted and the applicant has been granted bail by passing an order on a separate application. The sentence of the applicant has also been suspended by passing a separate order.
4. Mr. Chetan Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the application for stay of the conviction. He submits that the applicant has M. Sc., M. Ped qualifications and was appointed as lecturer in Nutan Maratha College, Jalgaon in the year 1991 and retired on superannuation from the post of Vice-Principal. It is further submitted that the applicant was elected as councillor of Municipal Council, Jalgaon and has rendered invaluable service during his tenure as councillor.
5. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is per se illegal and perverse in nature and the conclusions drawn by the Learned Sessions Court are against other accused and not against the applicant. He submits that the resolutions relied upon by the prosecution including resolution no. 300 regarding formation of high powered committee, resolution no.84 regarding grant of Rs. 3 Crores advance to contractors, resolution no. 8 for suspending works, resolution nos. 20 to 28 sanctioning work to Khandesh Builders are resolutions for which the applicant has at no point of time consented to or voted for. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was present only on 25.10.1997 for the resolution no. 328 appointing architect Kabre and Choudhari. Learned counsel submits that from the date of sanction of the “Gharkul Scheme” till the registration of crime, the applicant was absent or opposed to the same or did not consent. Therefore, he has no role in the alleged conspiracy and no conviction can be against him including conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been a responsible representative of council and himself has never indulged in corrupt practice. He submits that as can be seen from the orders, the applicant has been enlarged on bail during the trial and has also complied with the conditions of the bail and never mis-utilized the liberty granted to him. Also the sentence has been suspended. Learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid, conviction dated 31.08.2019 in Special Case No. 01/2014 by the Special Judge, Dhule be stayed pending the appeal, which is already admitted.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Chavan draws attention of this Court to three resolutions viz. resolution no. 328 dated 25.10.1997 with respect to the appointment of architect Kabre and Choudhari, resolution no.8 dated 11.04.2001 with respect to the suspension of
