Suspension of conviction remains an exceptional remedy, with second applications barred absent new circumstances or legal change.

A second application seeking suspension of conviction was treated as not maintainable because the earlier refusal had attained finality and no new circumstance or change in law was shown; the bar of res judicata applied. The text notes that stay of conviction is an exceptional remedy, granted only in rare cases after weighing the consequences of disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It further distinguishes situations involving a sitting elected representative facing a representative vacuum from the applicant's position, where no comparable electoral exigency existed. The relief was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second application seeking suspension of the conviction was maintainable and whether the conviction should be stayed to remove the electoral disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The pending appeal by itself was not treated as a sufficient ground for reopening a relief that had already been declined by a reasoned earlier order. The Court held that no new circumstance or change in law had been shown to justify a fresh application, and the plea was barred by finality and res judicata. On merits, the Court reaffirmed that stay of conviction is an exceptional remedy to be granted only in rare cases, after considering the wider consequences of disqualification. The facts were found distinguishable from cases where a sitting legislator's conviction had created a representative vacuum; here, the applicant was not an elected representative suffering disqualification during tenure of office.

Conclusion: The second application was not maintainable and no case was made out for suspension of the conviction; the relief was declined.

---