2006 (11) TMI 652 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification of the appellant u/s 8(1) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Effect of stay of conviction on disqualification.
3. Relevant dates for determining disqualification.
4. Applicability of precedents regarding stay of conviction.

Summary:

1. Disqualification of the appellant u/s 8(1) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The appellant, an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur. The appellant's conviction was stayed by the Bombay High Court pending appeal, allowing him to file his nomination for the fresh elections. The respondent challenged the appellant's election on the grounds of disqualification under Section 8(1) and (3) of the Act due to his conviction for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Effect of stay of conviction on disqualification:
The High Court, relying on the decision in *K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan*, concluded that the appellant was disqualified to contest the election as the conviction had not been set aside by a higher court as of the date of nomination. However, the Supreme Court noted that the stay of conviction granted by the Bombay High Court meant that the conviction was non-operative from the date of stay, thus negating the disqualification.

3. Relevant dates for determining disqualification:
The High Court opined that the decisive dates for determining disqualification are the date of election and the date of scrutiny of nomination. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the qualification or disqualification is to be determined with reference to the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination, and subsequent acquittal does not remove the disqualification as of the date of scrutiny.

4. Applicability of precedents regarding stay of conviction:
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including *Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors.*, which recognized the power to stay conviction in exceptional cases where failure to do so would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. The Court clarified that an order granting stay of conviction is an exception and not the rule, and in the present case, the stay of conviction was specifically sought to avoid disqualification from contesting the election.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not disqualified on the dates of nomination and election due to the stay of conviction. Consequently, the decision of the High Court declaring the appellant's election null and void was set aside, and the election petition was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.