1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2006 Kiran Kisanrao Ingale ...Applicant. (Org.Accd.No.17) v/s The State ...Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi Sr.Counsel i/by Prashant Hagare,advs. For the Applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 9,2011. P.C. 1 This application is moved by the original accused no.17, whose appeal is pending before this Court against the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 325, 324, 427 r/w section 149 of the IPC. Maximum sentence of R.I. for five year was awarded for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w section 149 of the I.P.C. The appeal has been admitted and is pending. He has been granted bail pending the appeal. 2 By this application, he wants suspension of the order of conviction under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that he proposes to contest the election of Municipal Council, Baramati. The 2 learned senior counsel has taken me through several judgments from the Supreme Court as well as this Court in respect of his contention that in the appropriate case, the order of conviction can also be suspended. According to him, if conviction is not suspended pending the appeal, the applicant may be deprived of his right to contest the election to the Municipal Council. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 1003 wherein the Sitting Member of the Parliament was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. In fact, the Supreme Court on facts found that the case against him was very weak and, therefore, the order of conviction was suspended. In Ramesh Narang V/s Rama Narang 1994 Mh.L.J. 1862, the order of conviction was sought to be suspended pending the appeal, because the petitioner was likely to be removed from the post of Managing Director of the Company due to conviction on ground of moral turpitude . In Laxman M. Sable v/s State of 3 Maharashtra 1997(2) Mh.L.J.780, the Sitting President of the Municipal Corporation was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304(I) and his appeal was admitted. On the facts of the case and particularly, because he belonged to de-notified Wadar tribe and was also Sitting President of the Municipal Corporation, having tenure of only one year, the conviction was suspended, otherwise, he would lose that post. 3 In my opinion, the present case can not be compared with any of the above referred cases on facts. In Ramesh Narang (Supra), the accused was holding the post of managing director of the company, which is not the public office. In the case of Laxman Sable (Supra), the accused was convicted when he was already member of Municipal Corporation and then the President and if his conviction would not have been suspended, he would have lost the post, which he was holding. In the present case, the applicant was not holding any post at the time of conviction and he just wants suspension of conviction so that he may contest the election to 4 the Municipal Corporation which is to be held in future. Contesting election to the Municipal Corporation is a legal right but not a fundamental right. If under the relevant provisions of law, he can not contest the election for the public office because of conviction and sentence, there is no valid reason to suspend the conviction and sentence just to give skip to the legal restriction. If he is deprived of that right by the law, the democratic system is not going to be adversely affected. In fact, it will be in the larger interest of the democracy and people of the country that the persons with criminal antecedents do not enter the elected bodies who have to run the Government at the different levels. Record of the present case shows that applicant was armed with cycle chain and he had actually assaulted and caused injury to one of the victims with chain. Medical evidence also provides corroboration to that. In view of these circumstances, I do not find any justification to suspend the order of conviction. 5 4 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)