Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyandas Mahra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1225 of 2011
(GYANDAS MAHRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukund Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
I.A. No.23055/2021, which is an application for suspension of
conviction on behalf of appellant No.5 Smt. Indra Bai is taken up and
considered.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on said I.A.
By the aforesaid I.A., appellant No.5 who is mother-in-law of the
deceased, who died under the suspicious circumstances, has sought stay of
conviction vide impugned judgment dated 09.05.2011 finding the appellant
No.5 alongwith four other co-accused persons to be guilty of offence of
murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
The reason assigned in said I.A. for seeking stay of conviction is that
appellant No.5 wants to contest the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat,
Amgawa, District Anuppur. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of Apex
Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Another
reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574.
After due consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to decline
aforesaid request as decision of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) has since been
distinguished by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2009) 5 SCC 787 wherein it is clearly held that
suspension of conviction ought not to be granted in grievous offences. The
relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced below:-
"10. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the
petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted for serious offences.
Of course, his conviction and sentence have been challenged before
this Court in an appeal. Though our attention was drawn to the
Signature Not Verified
SAN various findings recorded by the Special Judge and also the nature
Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN
QURESHI
Date: 2022.02.05 11:40:37 IST
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, we do not propose to
consider these facts at this stage as it may seriously prejudice either
of the parties when the appeal filed by the petitioner is considered
by this Court.
11. The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his
contribution to art and cinema he has got a large number of fans
throughout the country and abroad. His father was also a well-
known film actor and he was deeply involved in politics. At one
point of time, the petitioner's father was a Minister in the Union
Cabinet. The petitioner is not a habitual criminal nor has it been
brought to our notice that he had been involved in any other
criminal case.
12. Despite all these favourable circumstances, we do not think that
this is a fit case where conviction and sentence could be suspended
so that the bar under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People
Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. Law prohibits any
person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the
election and such person shall be disqualified for a further period
of six years since his release. In the face of such a provision, the
power of the Court under Section 389 CrPC shall be exercised only
under exceptional circumstances.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu case .
But in that case, the petitioner was a sitting MP and he could have
continued as an MP even after his conviction and sentence in view
of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The
petitioner in Navjot Singh Sidhu case resigned and expressed his
desire to contest the election. In fact, that was a case where the trial
court acquitted the petitioner and the High Court, in reversal, found
the petitioner guilty. It was in those circumstances that this Court
granted stay of the order of conviction and sentence in that case.
14. In the present case, no such circumstances are in favour of the
petitioner. In view of the serious offence for which he has been
convicted by the Special Judge, we are not inclined to suspend the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge in the
present case. We make it clear that we do not express any opinion
on the merits and, if any of the observations made in this order,
even if it has remote possibility to prejudice either parties, we state
that the same is only made for the purpose of disposal of Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 4087 of 2009-€Â"application for
suspension/stay of conviction."
In view of above, no case for suspension of conviction is made out.
Accordingly, I.A. No.23055/2021 stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
mohsin
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN
QURESHI
Date: 2022.02.05 11:40:37 IST
