JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Counsel for the applicant-original accused No. 1 and learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. This application is filed by the original accused No. 1 for suspension of his conviction in order to enable him to contest the election of the Panchayat Samiti. This accused along with many others was prosecuted for different offences under Indian Penal Code, namely, under sections 143, 147, 148, 325 read with 149 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years each and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default S.I. for six months. Accused-appellant wants to contest for Panchayat Samiti and as per section 58(1E) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, (for short "the said Act") his conviction is disqualification in his way because section 16(1)(b) of the said Act provides that if a person has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year shall be disqualified. Counsel for the appellant contended there is no moral turpitude in this offence against the accused, his conviction is for assault and for unlawful assembly; that the accused was Sarpanch of the village. The Panchayat Samiti has decided to construct a road when the complainant obstructed and then altercation took place in which some members of the complainants side suffered injuries and in that background the accused came to be convicted. He relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in (1) 1998 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 46 (Laxman Malhari Sable v. State of Maharashtra)1, (2) 1995 Supreme Court Cases 513 (Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang others)2, and (3) 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 329 (State of T.N. v. A. Jaganathan)3. 3. In 1996(5) S.C.C. 329 the criteria laid down by Supreme Court in this regard is that the moral conduct of the person should be considered while exercising power for suspension of conviction. 3. In 1996(5) S.C.C. 329 the criteria laid down by Supreme Court in this regard is that the moral conduct of the person should be considered while exercising power for suspension of conviction. In 1995 S.C.C. 513 the criteria that is laid down is that: "..........In a fit case if the High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted person does not suffer from a certain disqualification provided for in Act other statute, in may exercise the power because otherwise the damage done cannot be undone;........." In 1997(III) L.J. 253 of this Court the same view is taken about the damage being done but cannot be done if the conviction is not suspended. 4. Learned A.P.P., however strenuously urged that the matter is not so simple as is tried to be made out by the Counsel for the accused. He pointed out that in the assault caused by the accused along with others, the complainant and his sons Hiraman, Ganpat, Shivaji suffered injuries which were caused by means of axe, stones and sticks. It was an intentional assault and the prosecution case is as under: "That the complainant Vishnu Sukhaji Gangurde, is residing at village Meluske, along with his wife Laxmibai and his sons Hiraman, Ganpat and Shivaji, in a joint family. He is having field at village Meluske bearing No. 146. On 2-3-1999, his son Hiraman, and his nephew Sampat Dinkar, were working in his field. He went in his field by taking the bread of his son. Accused Madhav Rangnath Barde, Gotiram Rangnath Barde, Dattu Dagu Barde, Fakira Nathu Barde, Hari Dattu Barde, Yadav Traymbak Barde, Sunil Dasrath Barde, were doing the work of road. After seeing the complainant Vishnu accused No. 1 Madhav Rangnath Barde, told him that, "Dhedpat Khup Majle" If they would have allowed to fill-up the road, then they would have removed their crop of Sugarcane, from their fields. Thereafter he went in the village, and brought accused Shankar Barde, Tukaram Barde, Nivrutti Barde, Ganpat Barde, Dasrath Barde, Narayan Barde, Traymbak Barde (Police Patil) Shivram Barde, Balu Barde, Vinayak Barde, Balu Choudhary and wife of Madhav Barde, and they entered in their field and told that, "Mahardyancha Kata Kadha, Eaka Eakacha Murda Pada". 4. Thereafter he went in the village, and brought accused Shankar Barde, Tukaram Barde, Nivrutti Barde, Ganpat Barde, Dasrath Barde, Narayan Barde, Traymbak Barde (Police Patil) Shivram Barde, Balu Barde, Vinayak Barde, Balu Choudhary and wife of Madhav Barde, and they entered in their field and told that, "Mahardyancha Kata Kadha, Eaka Eakacha Murda Pada". 4. Thereafter, Madhav Barde assaulted complainant by means of an axe, Gotiram assaulted him by means of iron rod, Nivrutti Barde assaulted him by means of stick, Tukaram Barde, caught hold him, and Dattu Barde, assaulted him by means of stick, Balu Barde caught hold his hands. 5. Similarly, Madhav Barde assaulted Hiraman by means of an axe on his head. Gotiram assaulted Hiraman by means of iron rod, Tukaram Barde and Shankar Barde, assaulted Hiraman by means of iron rod, and stick. At that time his son Ganpat came there for rescuing the quarrel, but he was assaulted by Fakira Barde, by means of Phawada, Hari Barde, assaulted Ganpat by means of stone. His son Shivaji was assaulted by Dashrath, by means of stick, Sunil assaulted Shivaji by means of handle of Phawada. Narayan Barde assaulted Shivaji by means of stick. Wife of complainant was assaulted by Trayambak Barde by means of stick, and Gotiram assaulted complainant by means of iron rod, Shivram Barde, assaulted complainant by means of an axe. 6. Balu Chaudhary and Vinayak Barde and wife of Madhav Barde, dragged the wife of complainant and gave abuses on their caste. At that time his nephew ran away. The daughter of complainant by name Manisha was also dragged by the wife of Madhav. After the incident, complainant went to the Police Station for lodging the report." In this background the learned A.P.P., contended that accused though was a Sarpanch had the legal authority to get the work done if it was sanctioned and approved by the Gram Panchayat. He first had confrontation with the complainant and then he went back to the village, brought other accused on the spot. He first had confrontation with the complainant and then he went back to the village, brought other accused on the spot. All of them were armed with weapons and then they launched assault on the complainant and his three sons and therefore a person i.e. accused having no regard to law indulging in assault on the villagers when the Sarpanch could have taken police assistance if there was any resistance from the complainant to the lawful work they were doing (if at all it was lawful) is nothing but acting in high handed manner and misuse of powers and position as a Sarpanch and also amounts to showing disregard to law or legal process and therefore his conviction should not be suspended so as to enable him to contest the election. He also contended that if representatives of the people i.e. present applicant who was elected as a Sarpanch behaved in such a manner and if he is again permitted to contest election it will create serious problems in the society and will not set a good precedent. 5. A perusal of the judgment shows that this accused was carrying an axe and unlawful assembly to which he was a member and the leader has caused number of injuries to the four persons. Even family members of the complainants family i.e. his wife and daughter they were forcibly dragged while the assault was being caused. 6. Such a conduct of a person holding the post of Sarpanch does not entitle him to the relief of suspension of conviction. The facts of the case further shows that the road through the complainants field was granted by the Tahsildar therefore there was no reason for the accused to go to the extent of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to number of persons. This accused himself has assaulted all the victims. I do not find this to be a fit case to grant relief prayed for. Hence, prayer for suspension of conviction is rejected. Criminal application disposed of. Application rejected. -----