Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1420 (PAT)

Lallan Singh v. State Of Bihar Through Cbi

2009-11-12

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 2286 of 2009 is a petition wherein the petitioner-appellant Lallan Singh who stands convicted under Sections 302/34, 120B, 307/34, 333/34, 355/ 34 and 379/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act in a case relating to an occurrence wherein an Ex-Minister and his body-guard was killed by criminals and the carbine of the bodyguard was taken away, prays for stay/suspension of the order of conviction. 2. By this courts order dated 13.10.2009, the petitioner-appellant had been allowed bail on the ground as stated therein. 3. Now the petitioner-appellant seeks stay of the conviction as awarded to him on a plea that he wants to contest the coming Bihar Legislative Assembly Election. It has been stated at paragraph 31 of the petition that the petitioner-appellant is State General Secretary of Lok Janshakti Party and he earlier contested the election twice from Mokama. Assembly constituency but he lost. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the petitioner wants to contest election and his conviction in the case would operate as a bar in view of Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which enjoins that a person convicted for two years of imprisonment or more, will be debarred from contesting any election. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-appellant wants to contest the election and it is his valuable and fundamental right and that if the conviction is not stayed, he will be deprived of his valuable constitutional rights to contest the election. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer and he submits that whatever is stated by the petitioner in the garb of a constitutional right is nothing but one of the commonest grounds which is available to each and every citizen of India. It is also submitted that the petitioner did never win any election and he has never occupied any public post which could be obtained through winning an election. It is also submitted that despite contesting election and losing the same, the petitioner-appellant is living a normal life and there is nothing to show that if this right to contest is not being made available to the petitioner-appellant, it will entail a consequence as a threat to his livelihood, status or existence. 6. It is also submitted that despite contesting election and losing the same, the petitioner-appellant is living a normal life and there is nothing to show that if this right to contest is not being made available to the petitioner-appellant, it will entail a consequence as a threat to his livelihood, status or existence. 6. Learned counsel for the CBI further submits that, no doubt, this court has power to stay the conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the exercise of this power acts as an action to impede or stay the provisions of Section 8 of the Act which debars contesting of any election by a convicted person. It is submitted that in such a situation and as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in several decisions, the court must be watchful and on guard to see that such prayers are allowed only in case of exceptional or rarest of the rare cases. Learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that in view of Exht. 48 on the trial courts records, it is indicted that the petitioner-appellant was an accomplice of Suraj Bhan Singh, who is main accused in as many as thirty cases. It is also submitted that the petitioner has taken the plea that he wants to contest election but in near future no election is going to be held and that there is no notification for any kind of such election. 7. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, we find that the petitioners plea that he wants to contest the election in future is a common ground which is available to each and every citizen of India. But, in order to find that it is an exceptional and rarest of the rare case, it must be shown that unless the prayer is allowed, it will entail an irreparable loss to the petitioner or that it will cause a threat to his livelihood, status or existence. There is no ground for allowing the prayer. 8. In view of the circumstances, finding this case not being in the category of exceptional or rare one, we are unable to allow the prayer made in the present I.A. Accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed.