ORDER I.A. No. 216/2012 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This I.A. has been filed for suspension of conviction of petitioner in Trial No. 326/07 (G.R. No. 646/89) in which by Judgment and order dated 22.01.1997, the petitioner was convicted for offence under sections 279 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. 3. The petitioner also lost the Appeal by order dated 22.1.1997 in Cr. Appeal No.11/97 which was decided by Sessions Judge, Banka. The present Revision application is consequent to the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been compelled to file the present I.A. in view of the fact that he has been elected as a Mukhiya in the year 2011 and subsequent to that the State Election Commission has issued notice to him which has been made Annexure-1 of this I.A., by which a proceeding was started against him for his removal from the post on the ground that he has incurred a disqualification as he suppressed the fact of conviction and contested the Election for the post of Mukhiya, in which he has come out victorious. 5. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence which has nothing to do with public life and the present conviction, if not stayed, shall result in irreparable loss to him, in as much as he would be removed from his elected post and if later on, even if he succeeds in the present application, he would not be able to turn the clock back as he would have lost what he gained in contesting and winning the election. 6. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the merits of the case on the various Lacunas in the prosecution case and in the order of conviction and sentence, which cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 7. It is further submitted that the Court has interfered in such matters and stayed the conviction in appropriate cases and one of the major grounds is that if a person is elected on a public post, the conviction go stand that he shall suffer irreparable loss and thus indulge in a case has been shown in such cases to be cancelled. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the unreported decision of this Court in the case of Badri Narayan Khan in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 767/2007 in which by order dated 07.7.2008 this Court had stayed the conviction of the appellant and one of the grounds was that if the conviction was not stayed, then the appellant would suffer disqualification for continuing on the post of Mukhiya. 9. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vrs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (1) PLJR (SC) 329 in which the conviction was stayed and one of the grounds was that it would come in the way of the petitioner of that case in contesting elections and if the Court failed to do so, and if ultimately he was acquitted he would suffer irreparable loss and accordingly the conviction was stayed. 10. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for suspension of conviction on the ground that in the present case the petitioner is alleged to be the driver of the Tractor, which dashed one minor boy and due to rash and negligent driving this incident took place. She also submits that eye witnesses have identified the petitioner and supported the prosecution case and minor discrepancies would not falsify the incident as well as the fact that a person lost his life directly by coming under the wheel of the Tractor driven by the petitioner. With regard to the decision of this court referred by the Learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Badri Nath (Supra), Learned A.P.P. submits that it was a case where a person had suffered disqualification much after having been elected and under such circumstances the Court had shown indulgence. In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted indulgence by staying the conviction mainly going by the conduct of the appellant, who after losing the Appeal had resigned from his post. He moved the Court for staying of his conviction and in those circumstances the Court had granted him such indulgence. In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted indulgence by staying the conviction mainly going by the conduct of the appellant, who after losing the Appeal had resigned from his post. He moved the Court for staying of his conviction and in those circumstances the Court had granted him such indulgence. He submits that in the present case the petitioner suppressed the fact of his prior conviction before the authorities and thus he contested the election, which goes to prove his conduct of trying to play fraud and that he has not maintained probity and moral values in public life. 11. It is submitted that even at the time of the filling up of form for contesting for the post of Mukhiya the petitioner had already incurred disqualification even to contest the poll, which he suppressed and thus the decision referred above are of no help to the petitioner in the present case. 12. This Court has given serious consideration to the rival contentions and is in agreement with the stand taken and submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State. 13. In the present case the petitioner was convicted much before he filled up his paper for contesting the election to the post of Mukhiya but inspite of that he suppressed this fact and contested the election even though the same was a disqualification even for the purposes of contesting, much less to hold the post. 14. In the case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner this is substantial point of difference as the persons who came before the Court in those cases had incurred disqualification subsequent to their election and not suppressed this fact and thus the Court had shown indulgence. 15. Even in those cases it is clearly stipulated that in a proper case if the Court is convinced that irreparable loss is likely to be caused and there is sufficient ground to indicate that there may be acquittal, then in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to. However, in the present case, this Court feels that even upon consideration of the case on merits, the conviction cannot be said to be bad prima facie. 16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to grant relief of stay of conviction. However, in the present case, this Court feels that even upon consideration of the case on merits, the conviction cannot be said to be bad prima facie. 16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to grant relief of stay of conviction. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. It goes without saying that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the application for stay and shall not prejudice either side in any other proceeding or at the time of hearing the case finally on merits.