Allahabad High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by former Samajwadi Party Member of Legislative Assembly(‘MLA’) Irfan Solanki’s against the conviction order under Sections , , read with Section of the (‘IPC’), the division bench of Rajiv Gupta and Surendra Singh, JJ., held that although disqualification from the post of MLA due to conviction could lead to injustice and irreversible consequences, the Court must also consider wider ramifications of the stay of conviction. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appeal stating that Irfan Solanki had been properly convicted and has a long history of criminal antecedents.
Background:
Irfan Solanki has been an MLA from Arya Nagar Constituency in 2007, 2012, and 2017, and from Shishamau Kanpur Nagar in 2022. On account of being convicted in the instant case, he has been disqualified for the post of MLA as per Section of the (‘the RPA’) and also for further elections. Thus, he filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order of conviction. Thereafter, the appeal was admitted, the Trial Court record was perused, and bail/suspension of sentence was allowed by separate orders. The last prayer regarding stay of the order of conviction is being dealt with hereinafter.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court placed reliance on the cases of Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, , wherein the Court had noted that if such trifling matters involving the slightest disadvantage to the convicted persons are considered, every conviction would have to be suspended pending appeal or revision. The Court held that it is true that this Court has the power to stay the conviction, however, such power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances in a case where the Court is convinced that not staying the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.
The Court also referred to the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, , wherein the Supreme Court had held that the Court while considering the question of whether to stay the conviction pending hearing of the appeal, must also consider the wider ramification of the same.
The Court noted that it is germane to point out that the power to stay the execution of a sentence and the power to stay the conviction stand on different pedestals, since for the stay of execution of a sentence only prima facie case against the convicts is to be looked into, however, his conviction is not liable to be stayed on this ground alone.
The Court noted that Irfan Solanki has been convicted of the offences he was charged with after holding a full-fledged trial. One of the consequences of the conviction is that he has been disqualified for the post of MLA as per Section 8 of the RPA and has also been disqualified for further election. The Court noted that while it is contended that such disqualification would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences, the Court must also consider wider ramifications of the stay of conviction.
The Court stated that in recent times, there has been an increasing demand for purity in politics. The representative of people should be a man of clear antecedents. It has often been seen that many persons with criminal antecedents or who are charged with heinous crimes stand for and are elected to Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court spoke of this issue in the case of Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, and additionally, in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, , it has been held that a mere bar to contest elections would not be sufficient ground to stay the conviction. Thus, the Court opined that the persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices.
In light of the above-stated circumstances and the settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court opined that the convicts, who have been charged with serious offences and have a long criminal history, do not have a fit case for stay of conviction.
Keeping in view its wider social impact for staying the conviction under Section 389 (1) CrPC/ 430(1) BNSS. and having no exceptional case been pointed out on behalf of convict 2, the Court opined that merely by pleading that Irfan Solanki by his conviction stands disqualified as per the Representation of People Act, 1951, is no ground to suspend the conviction.
[Irfan Solanki v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No. 6659 of 2024, decided on 14-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Senior Advocate G.S. Chaturvedi, Imran Ullah, and Upendra Upadhyay
For the Respondent: Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Sri A.K. Sand, Government Advocate, and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, A.G.A. for the State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .