IRFAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application in hand has been preferred on behalf of Ahsan under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. THE applicant-appellant is one of the appellants in the above mentioned pending appeal. THE prayer made in the application is that the judgment and order of conviction and sentences recorded against the appellant be suspended pending appeal.

(2.) THE appeal impugning the judgment and order of conviction was preferred in this Court on 3.7.1989 and the same was admitted by means of order dated 4.7.1989 attended with further order to enlarge the appellant on bail pending appeal. THE reason for preferring this application as assigned in the application is that the appellant intends to contest the Lok Sabha election and 18.4.2009 being the last date for filing nomination, the learned counsel insisted on disposal of the application. Regard being had to urgency of the matter as pointed out by the learned counsel, the matter was heard at length and having considered the matter in all its ramifications, the application was rejected studded with the observation that detailed orders shall follow. THE detailed order runs as under :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially, the father of appellant namely Shabbir was assaulted which case was registered as Case Crime No. 33 of 79 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 and 149, I.P.C. THE case was tried vide S.T. No. 12 of 1981 and the trial culminated in conviction vide judgment and order dated 29.3.1982. Subsequently a criminal appeal was filed. According to learned counsel, the said appeal was decided in terms of false statement made by the counsel for the appellant in that case that a compromise has been brought about between the parties further stating that the complainant of that case was not inclined to proceed with the prosecution of the appellant in appeal, and in consequence the appellant of that case was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 in lieu of sentence awarded by the trial court. According to further submission of the learned counsel, no such compromise was arrived at and on coming to know of the tricks played by the appellant of that case, his client has already preferred appropriate application.