TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "IPC, 1908") read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act, 1988") to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, (ii) For the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months, (iii) For the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months, 3. The Applicant along with the Appeal filed an Application CRL.M. (Bail) 2274/2017 under Section 389(1) read with Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1951"), a person is disqualified from contesting the election of Legislative Assembly and Parliament upon being convicted for an offence under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1951 for a period of six years from the date of conviction. Section 8(3) of the Act, 1951 further bars the person from contesting the election for a further period of six years since the date of his release. The period of six years is already over from the date of conviction. 10. In the present case, the Applicant was convicted vide Judgment dated 13.12.2017 and Order on Sentence dated 16.12.2017. The Applicant claims that he has good case on merits and irreparable loss would be caused not only to him but also to his Electorate, who have elected him to the Legislative Assembly as well as to the Parliament from time to time. The ramifications of Section 8(3) of the Act, 1951 are wide-ranging as they affect not only the right of the Applicant to continue in public life but also the right of the Electorate who have elected the Applicant to represent their constituency. He shall be deprived of his constitutional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the applicant-appellant and the Director of M/s Vini Iron & Steel Udyog Ltd. The judgment of the conviction is liable to be set aside in the absence of any cogent evidence against the Applicant-Appellant. 15. The applicant-appellant has placed reliance on the decisions in Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr., (2024) 2 SCC 595 and Dilip Ray vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided vide CRL.A. 533/2020 in CRL.M.A. 7631/2024, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had stayed the conviction of the Petitioner therein in order to enable him to contest the elections. 16. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Raj Babbar vs. State of U.P., CRL. MISC. Application No. 1/2024 on 29.03.2024, wherein the Allahabad High Court, while staying the operation of the impugned conviction, considered the candidature of the applicant therein for Parliamentary Election, which was urgent in nature. 17. It is submitted that the chances of the Appeal being heard are slim keeping in mind the heavy backlog/pendency and the delay in disposal, which is likely to cause irreparable loss to the Applicant-Appellant. 18. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra), wherein the conviction of the appellant has been suspended and he has been permitted to contest the elections vide Order dated 08.05.2024. However, this judgment in Dilip Ray, (supra) is per incuriam and is liable to be disregarded. 27. If the litigants are permitted to approach the very same Court for the relief which has been denied earlier, simply because another view was taken subsequently, it would be disastrous. This would shake the finality and sanctity attached to the judgments of this Court and thus, every judgment delivered by this Court would become vulnerable to challenge simply because there is a change in view of law. 28. There is no change in circumstances or in law. The applicant- appellant has not been able to establish any grounds for reviewing the Order dated 22.05.2020 vide which this relief had been denied to him. 29. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Public Interest Foundation & Ors. vs. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224, wherein the Apex Court had observed that persons charged with corruption offences cannot be permitted to contest the elections. The judgment in Afjal Ansari (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with responsibility to ensure that the existing political framework does not get tainted with the evil of corruption. However, despite this heavy mandate prescribed by our Constitution, our Indian democracy, which is the world"s largest democracy, has seen a steady increase in the level of criminalisation that has been creeping into the Indian polity. This unsettlingly increasing trend of criminalisation of politics, to which our country has been a witness, tends to disrupt the constitutional ethos and strikes at the very root of our democratic form of government by making our citizenry suffer at the hands of those who are nothing but a liability to our country." 36. As noted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar the "right to represent," as opposed to the "right to representation," is not an unlimited right but is dependent upon "a certain social attitude of a candidate as a condition precedent to the recognition to the right to represent." 37. The Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691, made certain observations qua the two rights, which reads as under: "8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate Court can suspend, or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case." 42. This court, in its earlier Order, while recognizing the power to stay conviction, observed that "such power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances" and that it is limited to cases where this court is convinced that not staying conviction would lead to "injustice and irreversible consequences". 43. Other criteria for stay of conviction was laid down by the Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, wherein the court observed that when the Court is deciding an Application for stay of conviction, it must also consider the wider ramifications of the same. ....