Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 596 (MP)

Kishore Samrite v. State of M. P.

2013-05-06

G.S.Solanki

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard on IA No. 9533/2013, which is an application under section 389(1) read with section 482 of the CrPC for stay of conviction of appellant No. 1 Kishore Samrite/applicant. 2. The applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the IPC and section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 1 year, RI for 1 year, RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulations. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the substantive jail sentence of applicant has been suspended and he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2010. The applicant is an Ex-MLA. He was a dedicated public servant and he has served the assembly and the people of assembly with utmost dedication to his duty. He has also filed Public Interest Litigations in Constitutional Courts with a view to subserve public good. The applicant has a very good case to succeed in appeal. Though, the substantive jail sentence has been suspended by this Court, however, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the absence of suspension/stay of conviction, the applicant will suffer a disqualification as envisaged under section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. If the applicant is disqualified, he would suffer irreparable loss. His entire political career is on stake. Thus, it would be equitable and in the interest of justice that the conviction of applicant be stayed. Learned Sr. counsel has placed reliance on a decision of apex Court in Navjot Singh Siddhu v. State of Punjab and another - (2007) 2 SCC 574 . 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that Hon’ble the apex Court has observed in number of cases that the conviction of the accused can only be suspended in rare cases. Looking to the nature of allegation against the applicant, the conviction of the applicant should not be suspended/stayed, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. As per the prosecution, the incident took place under the leadership of the applicant himself. Looking to the nature of allegation against the applicant, the conviction of the applicant should not be suspended/stayed, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. As per the prosecution, the incident took place under the leadership of the applicant himself. The applicant along with other co-accused persons, who were having sticks in their hands, entered in the Court of complainant Dhaneshwar Sai, SDM and assaulted him on the Dias and when the complainant tried to save himself by entering into his cabin, the applicant and co-accused destroyed the property of his office and cut the telephone wire, thereafter vehicle of complainant was also set on fire by the applicant and co-accused. It is on record that the applicant is a member of a political partly. In case, he was having any complaints with respect to the working of the complainant, he should have approached the appropriate forum but he threatened a public servant while he was discharging this duties in his Court room and at that time other witnesses were also present there. 6. The facts of Navjot Singh Siddhu v. State of Punjab and another (supra) are totally different than the instant case. In that case, the incident was not related with the public life of the applicant. In the instant case, the incident is directly related with the public life of applicant and co-accused persons. 7. Considering the evidence of complainant Dhaneshwar Sai (PW1) and other witnesses like Arvind (PW2), Sukhnandan Dehria (PW14) the then Tahsildar, Dr. Umesh Dahate (PW24), Ramroop Bari (PW25) the then CEO, Mauganj, in my opinion, there is a strong case against the applicant for the offence punishable under sections 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thus, the case of the applicant does not come in the category of rare cases, in which the conviction should be suspended. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find it a fit case for suspension/stay of conviction of the applicant. IA No. 9533/2013 is hereby dismissed. 9. List for final hearing in the due course.