AFJAL ANSARI versus STATE OF UP

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 14-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 969 : 2023 INSC 1071
969
CASE DETAILS
AFJAL ANSARI
v.
STATE OF UP
(Criminal Appeal No. 3838 of 2023)
DECEMBER 14, 2023
[SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: What are the parameters to be considered 
for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; whether the appellant 
has made out a prima facie case for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) 
CrPC; and whether conviction of an off ence involving ‘moral turpitude’ 
can be a valid ground to deny suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 (1) – Suspension of 
conviction –Appellant-member of Parliament, convicted u/s. 3(1) of the 
Gangsters Act and sentenced to four years imprisonment with a fi ne 
of Rupees One lakh by the trial court, and consequent thereto he was 
disqualifi ed from membership in the Lok Sabha – Thereagainst, the 
appellant fi led an appeal as also an application u/s. 389(1) for suspension 
of execution of the sentence awarded and his release on bail, during 
pendency of the appeal, stay of the eff ect and operation of the judgement 
passed by the trial court – High Court suspended the sentence and 
granted bail but rejected the stay on conviction – Correctness:
Held: Per Surya Kant, J (For himself and Ujjal Bhuyan, J) High 
Court held that there was no cogent evidence to establish that the appellant 
was indulging in anti-social activities and crimes such as murder or ransom; 
and that the appellant’s role in the old FIR, which stood reference point 
in the gang chart in the new FIR, had already resulted in his acquittal – 
Having applied the criteria that conviction, if allowed to operate would 
lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated 
in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, carves 
Ed. Note: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant pronounced judgment on behalf of himself 
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta pronounced a 
separate judgment. 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
out an exceptional situation, warranting an order of stay on his award 
of conviction, though partially – Potential ramifi cations of declining to 
suspend such a conviction are multifaceted – It would deprive the appellant’s 
constituency of its legitimate representation in the Legislature; and the 
appellant would be disqualifi ed from contesting elections for a period of ten 
years – Thus, the need to balance the interests of protecting the integrity of 
the electoral process on one hand, while also ensuring that constituents are 
not bereft of their right to be represented, merely consequent to a threshold 
opinion – Conviction awarded to the appellant suspended subject to the 
given conditions, clarifi cations and directions – Ghazipur parliamentary 
constituency not to be notifi ed for bye-election, till the decision of the 
appellant’s appeal by the High Court – Appellant not entitled to participate 
in the proceedings of the house, would not have the right to cast his vote in 
the house or to draw any perks or monetary benefi ts. [Paras 13, 15, 17, 21, 
23, 24] – Held: Per Dipankar Datta, J.(Dissenting) Allowing a convicted 
parliamentarian to attend parliamentary proceedings could not only be 
derogatory to the dignity of the Parliament but also derogatory to the good 
sense and wisdom of the people who elected such parliamentarian – While 
recognizing the importance of the electorate’s representation, it is necessary 
to maintain a balance between this right and the enforcement of legal 
accountability within the democratic framework – The fact that the court is 
approached by a parliamentarian/legislator, by itself, should not be viewed 
with such importance and indispensability – Thus, the judgment passed by 
the High Court does not call for interference – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and 
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. [Paras 52, 80, 48]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389(1) – Suspension of 
conviction – Essential parameters:
Held: It is evident from the plain language of s. 389(1) that the 
appellate court is unambiguously vested with the power to issue an order for 
the suspension of a sentence or an order of conviction during the pendency 
of an appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, for which it is 
imperative to assign the reasons in writing – The very notion of irreversible 
consequences is centered on factors, including the individual’

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.