LALSAI KHUNTE versus NIRMAL SINHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LALSAJ KHUNTE 
NIRMAL SINHA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MA THUR AND V.S. SJRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
C 
S. 8(3)-Disqualification on conviction-Suspension of sentence while 
granting bail-Held, suspension does not amount to temporary stay of 
conviction-Conviction still remains-Specific order staying conviction has 
to be sought which was not done-Election rightly set aside by High Court-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.389-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 420134, 
468. 
D 
Appellant was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly. His election 
was challenged in an election petition on the ground that he was convicted 
j 
under ss. 420/34 and 468 IPC and was sentenced to two years rigorous 
~ 
imprisonment about 1 Yz years before his filing the nomination papers for 
the said elect' Jn and, as such, he was disqualified under s.8(3) of the 
E Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant resisted the challenge 
stating that execution of the judgment and the conviction was stayed by the 
appellate court. The single Judge of the High Court set aside the election of 
the appellant holding that his conviction was not stayed but suspended. 
Aggrieved, the returned candidate filed the appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The appellate Court while granting the appellant bail only 
suspended the order of the trial court. Thus, suspension does not amount to 
temporarily washing out the conviction. The conviction still remains, only the 
G operation of the order and the sentence remain suspended; that does not 
amount to temporary stay of the conviction. A specific order staying conviction 
has to be sought, which has not betn done. The view taken by the single Judge 
of the High Court is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 
[Paras 14 and 15] [335-E, F] 
H 
328 
LALSAI KHUNTE v. NIRMAL SINHA [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 
329 
K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, [2005] 1 SCC 754; Ravikant S. Patil A 
.. 
f 
v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2006) 12 SCALE 295; Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State 
" 
of Punjab, JT (2007) 2 SC 382 and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and 
Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 513, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4055 of2006. 
B 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in EP No. 9/2004. 
Ravindra Shrivastava, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Rajkumar Gupta, Kuna! 
Verma, M. Mannan, Arjun Garg and Raju! Shrivastava for the Appellant. 
c 
Satya Pal Jain, Vivek Goyal and Gopal Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 
1.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court D 
at Bilaspur in Election Petition No. 9/2004 whereby the learned Single Judge 
has allowed the election petition in part and set aside the election of the 
} 
appellant for Malkharaud Assembly Constituency No. 3 8 to the Chhattisgarh 
State Legislative Assembly. Aggrieved against the said order the present 
appeal was filed. 
E 
2. The Election Commission of India by Notification dated 7.11.2003, 
notified the election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh 
inviting persons t<:> submit their nomination papers between 7 .11.2003 to 
14.11.2003 and 15.11.2003 was the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers 
& the last date for withdrawal of candidature was 17.11.2003. The election was F 
fixed for 2nd December, 2003. Nine candidates filed their nominations. After 
y 
scrutiny, petitioner along with respondents Nos. 1 to 7 remained in contest. 
The polling took place on 2nd December, 2003 and the result was declared 
on 4th December, 2003 declaring the appellant as elected for constituency. 
The appellant was convicted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case No. 208/91- State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lal G 
Sai and two others under Section 420 read with Sections 34 and 468 read with 
Section 34 of the IPC and punished for two years. , rigorous imprisonment 
,. 
on each count and convicted under section 4 71 of the IPC and punished with 
rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment and order dated 9.5.2002. 
Aggrieved against this order appellant filed appeal before District Judge and H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 31.5.2002 released 
appellant on furnishing Bond & Security & suspe

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