Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1 CRA-5523-2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-5523-2019
(GANESH SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated: 03-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Mayank
Sharma, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Mukund Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/ State.
I.A. No.2861/2021 has been filed seeking stay of
conviction dated 24.06.2019 passed in S.T. No.148/2013.
It is undisputed that the suspension of the sentence of
appellant has been suspended by order dated 28.08.2019.
The contents of I.A. No.2861/2021 reveal that stay of the
conviction has been sought by the appellant, who has been
convicted for different kinds of forgery for life sentence on two
counts, for 7 years for offences punishable under Sections 420
and 468 of IPC. The grounds raised in the said IA are on merits,
on the basis of which the sentence has already been suspended.
The earlier view of the Apex Court in the case of Navjot
Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2007 SC
1003 relied upon by appellant has subsequently been
distinguished in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 787 inter alia holding that in
offences of serious nature, suspension of conviction ought not be
made. Relevant extract of the 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
2 CRA-5523-2019
drawn to the various findings recorded by the
Special Judge and also the nature 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
3 CRA-5523-2019
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--application for
suspension/stay of conviction."
Accordingly, we find no merit and substance in I.A.
No.2861/2021, same stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2022.02.04
11:12:46 +05'30'
