DEV NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 1178 of 2007 This Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Pro - cedure for suspension/stay of the conviction of the appellant Dev Nath Yadav during the pendency of this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant is a sitting member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. By the impugned judgment dated 4/5.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -IV, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1993 the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence. The sentence has already been suspended and he is on bail. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for suspension/stay of his conviction on the ground that it would incur his disqualification for being chosen for either house of Bihar Legislative or Parliament in view of the bar provided in Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. There is no dispute that the appellate court has power to stay or suspend either order of conviction or sentence or both, under Section 389(0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is well settled principle of law that the order of conviction should not be suspended or stayed in a routine manner. It should be resorted to in a rare case depending upon special facts of each case and on being shown the exceptional circumstance. It cannot be resorted to only because convict files appeal against conviction or any adverse consequences likely to be incurred in future.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in course of submission has urged that the appellant is well known figure and also a sitting member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. If his conviction is not stayed, he would be debarred from being chosen or contest the election either for Legislative Assembly or for Parliament. It has further been contended that the Apex Court in several decisions has considered it as special circumstance and has suspended/stayed the order of conviction. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision reported in (2007)1 S.C.C. 673 [: 2007(1) PLJR (SC)85] (Ravi Kant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali), (2007)2 S.C.C. 574 [: 2007(1) PLJR (SC)329] (Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and Another), (1995)2 S.C.C. 513 (Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed on 15.10.2004 in Cr. Appeal 446 of 2002(DB), Ramesh Jeya Sahni @ Bhaga vs. State of Bihar.