TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Suspension of Conviction Under Section 389 Allows Contesting 2024 Elections Amid Pending Appeal</h1> <h3>Dilip Ray Versus Central Bureau of Investigation</h3> Dilip Ray Versus Central Bureau of Investigation - 2024:DHC:2823 ISSUES: Whether the conviction under Sections 120B/409/420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be suspended pending appeal on the ground of contesting upcoming elections.Whether the principle of 'irreversible consequences' applies to suspension of conviction in corruption cases involving public servants.The legal parameters for granting suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., particularly in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The distinction between disqualification of an elected representative and a person aspiring to contest elections with respect to suspension of conviction.The applicability of recent Supreme Court precedents on suspension of conviction, including Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and K.C. Sareen v. CBI. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is permissible where failure to do so would cause 'irreversible consequences,' including loss of opportunity to contest elections, which cannot be compensated later.It was held that the applicant's long political career, age (71 years), and the pendency of appeal justify suspension of conviction to prevent 'irreversible damage' to his political career and democratic rights.The Court distinguished the present case from K.C. Sareen (2001), noting that unlike in that case where damages were compensable, here the consequence of non-suspension would be irreparable.The Court accepted the principle laid down in Afjal Ansari (2024) that the appellate court's power to suspend conviction should not be narrowly construed and must consider the 'peculiar facts and circumstances' including 'irreversible consequences.'The Court clarified that suspension of conviction does not amount to acquittal but is a procedural relief granted in exceptional circumstances. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., which empowers appellate courts to suspend conviction and sentence pending appeal upon assignment of reasons in writing.Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasized that suspension of conviction should be considered where failure to do so results in 'irreversible consequences' such as loss of electoral rights and political representation.The Court noted the distinction between suspension of conviction for an elected representative (already disqualified) and a person merely aspiring to contest elections, but found that the latter's right to contest is also protected when irreversible harm is demonstrated.The Court rejected the argument that suspension of conviction in corruption cases is generally impermissible, holding that each case must be decided on its 'peculiar circumstances' and that the principle of irreparable damage is paramount.The Court declined to delve into the merits of the conviction at this stage, emphasizing that the relief granted is procedural and does not prejudice the final outcome of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
