Stay of conviction suspends election disqualification until the stay ends, so nomination and election remain valid.

A stay of conviction suspends the statutory disqualification flowing from the conviction for so long as the stay remains in force, though the conviction itself is not erased. In election matters, disqualification is assessed with reference to the relevant electoral dates, including nomination and election. Because the conviction had been stayed before the nomination was filed, the candidate was not under an operative statutory disability on those dates. The challenge to the election on the ground of disqualification therefore failed, the High Court's contrary view was set aside, and the returned candidate's election stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order staying conviction pending appeal removes the statutory disqualification arising from conviction for the period during which the stay operates. (ii) Whether the returned candidate was disqualified on the dates of nomination and election so as to render the election void.

Issue (i): Whether an order staying conviction pending appeal removes the statutory disqualification arising from conviction for the period during which the stay operates.

Analysis: An order of stay of conviction is distinct from a stay of execution of sentence. Where conviction itself is stayed, the conviction does not operate during the currency of the stay, though it is not obliterated. In the present case, the application specifically sought stay of conviction because the candidate would otherwise incur election disqualification, and the appellate court granted that relief. The decisions recognising power to stay conviction treat it as an exceptional remedy, but when such stay is granted on relevant facts, the disqualification flowing from conviction does not continue to operate.

Conclusion: The stay of conviction removed the disqualification during the relevant period and the candidate was not disqualified on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the returned candidate was disqualified on the dates of nomination and election so as to render the election void.

Analysis: Disqualification for election purposes is tested with reference to the relevant electoral dates, especially the date of scrutiny of nomination and the date of election. Subsequent acquittal is irrelevant to the validity of the nomination if the candidate was disqualified on those dates. Here, however, the conviction had already been stayed before nomination, so the statutory disqualification under the election law was not operative when the nomination was filed and the result declared.

Conclusion: The candidate was not disqualified on the dates of nomination and election, and the election could not be declared void on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view on disqualification was set aside, the election challenge failed, and the returned candidate's election stood.

Ratio Decidendi: A stayed conviction is non-operative for as long as the stay subsists, and in election matters the existence of disqualification is to be determined with reference to the relevant electoral date; if the conviction is stayed before nomination, the statutory disability does not attach for that period.

---