-: 1 :- wp-7452/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7452 OF 2011 Pramod @ Balaso B. Ladge. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. D. V. Sutar for the petitioner. Mr. V. A. Jadhav for R-4. Mr. Rahul V. Walvekar for R-1. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for R-5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 19, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petition pertains to the disqualification proceedings under sections 14 and 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short “the said Act”]. The petitioner is a member of the village panchayat–Shirol. Admittedly, he has been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences punishable under sections 452, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 1 year, 1 year and 6 months respectively. The petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court srp -: 2 :- wp-7452/11 and the Sessions Court by its order dated 22/4/2010 has suspended operation of the sentence of imprisonment. 2. The Additional Collector by his order dated 2/9/2010 disqualified the petitioner under the provisions of section 14(1) (a)(ii) of the said Act. Mr. Sutar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Sessions Court suspended the operation of sentence of imprisonment, therefore, the petitioner cannot be disqualified under the provisions of section 14(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act. 3. Mr. Walvekar, learned counsel for respondent no.5, on the contrary , relied upon decision of the Apex Court in K. Prabhakaran vs. P.Jayarajan (2005) 1 SCC 754 and decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Shamshadbi vs. State of Maharashtra [2009(3) Mh.L.J. 296]. The Apex Court in K. Prabhakaran’s case in paragraph no.42 has made distinction between “suspension of conviction and sentence” and “suspension of execution of sentence”. The Apex Court was considering the provisions of section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Mr. Sutar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of sections 8(1) and 8(3) of RPA, 1951 and section 14(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act -: 3 :- wp-7452/11 are not similar, therefore, the ratio laid down in R. Prabhakaran is not applicable to the present case. I have perused those provisions. There is no material difference between those provisions and therefore ratio in R. Prabhakaran’s case is applicable to the present case. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Shamshadbi (supra) considered the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and held that mere suspension of the sentence by appellate court in the absence of any order of stay of conviction does not amount to temporary washing out conviction. I am in agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge in Shamshadbi (supra). I find that both the authorities below have considered the petitioner’s case in proper perspective. I find that the petitioner is rightly disqualified. No interference in the impugned order at the hands of this Court is warranted. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)