Case title: Daya Nand Chandela v. State
Case no: CRL.A. 835/2010 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 746/2024
Dated on: 10May
Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Facts of the case:
The applicant/appellant is seeking suspension of conviction order passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Rohini, Delhi the cause of action which is arising out of FIR, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 452/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). On 11.12.2008, at about 4:10 pm, Tilak Nagar Police Station received information regarding an attack on the residence of an MLA and by the time the police arrived, injured/victims had already been taken to DDU Hospital, Delhi. Mr.Sudesh Chandela who is the complainant/victim/ informed the police that they had lent Rs. 50,000/- to one Sufi, who absconded without repaying the amount. The complainant rented jhuggi of Sufi and thereafter, the neighbours of the complainant informed that one Manoj who is the co-accused herein had come and put a lock on the said jhuggi which prompted the complainant Sudesh Chandela and his companion to go to Dayanand Chandela’s residence who is the present applicant/appellant along with Manoj. Both of them confronted the accused persons regarding the lock they put on the jhuggi who in turn explained that they also had financial claims against Sufi and since he had not been paying the said amount, they had locked his jhuggi. During the said conversation, there was heated arguments and thereafter, Dayanand Chandela arrived at the scene and took out a sword. The co-accused Nawab was armed with a sword, while Manoj and Meghraj carried sticks with them. Upon seeing the escalation of the issue, Sudesh Chandela and his other companions fled towards their house for safety. However, Dayanand Chandela, along with the three other co-accused followed them and struck Sudesh Chandela with a sword blow, which Sudesh managed to block. The co-accused Nawab, attacked him with a sword, and other co-accused Manoj and Meghraj assaulted with sticks. The accused persons targeted Sudesh’s father Harpal, his uncle Ram Gopal and his brother Ravinder who had intervened to protect the complainant. Thereafter, FIR was registered and after trial, the accused persons i.e; Nawab, Manoj, Megh Raj and the present applicant Dayanand Chandela were convicted by the learned Trial Court.
Issue:
Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the suspension/stay of conviction order.
Legal provisions:
Section 452- House tresspass
Section 307- of the IPC- attempted murder.
Contentions of the appellant:
The present applicant is aged about 70 years and is a distinguished public figure. The applicant wishes to contest the Lok Sabha Elections 2024 to be held in Delhi on 25.05.2024, and the last date for filing of nomination is 06.05.2024. The present applicant has clean antecedents and has never been convicted. The applicant has won Delhi and Rajouri Garden assembly elections. In the year 2013, when the applicant submitted nomination forms, the Returning Officer on account of judgment and the order of sentence disqualified him. Due to the order of conviction dated 03.06.2010, he cannot contest the upcoming Lok Sabha General Elections, 2024 due to the bar imposed by Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There are substantial legal and factual questions involved in the present appeal. It would be in the interest of justice to allow him to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha elections by suspending his conviction.
Contentions of the respondent:
The applicant had earlier filed two applications for suspension of order of conviction dated 03.06.2010 i.e., in the year 2015 which was dismissed on 15.01.2015, and the other application in the year 2019 which was also dismissed on 10.01.2020. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and appreciated the evidence in detail. There are no grounds at this stage to come to the conclusion that the appellant is innocent and the appeal is going to result in acquittal. The evidence on record proved the guilt and therefore there are no grounds for suspension of the conviction. Thus, merely because the present applicant intends to contest the elections cannot be a ground to suspend the conviction.
Courts analysis and judgement:
The Court noted judgment dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Predecessor Bench, wherein a similar application was moved, and the predecessor Court concluded that the application has no merit. The Court ruled that Petitioner has not made out a case where an order for suspension/ stay against conviction could be granted. The case does not appear to be of exceptional circumstances where if stay is not granted would result in causing injustice to the Petitioner. Supreme Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu held that “grant of stay of conviction is not a rule, but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases”. The appellant contested the election previously in the year 2008 and thereafter he didn’t contest elections. Hence, the application was dismissed. In the second application filed in 2019, the Court held that petitioner could not make out grounds for suspension of his conviction order so as to allow him to contest the elections. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been convicted under Sections 452/307/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment. The appeal, preferred against the conviction order is still pending and the applicant has once again approached the Court praying to suspend the conviction order to enable him to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024. In Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to suspend the conviction of an individual, the primary factors to be looked are the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the failure to grant stay would lead to injustice. In the present case, the applicant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years by the Trial Court after conclusion of trial. It will be inappropriate to discuss the case for assessing the merits at this stage, as that would mean premature adjudication of the main appeal. The present application is the third application for the same reason and the Predecessor Benches have passed detailed judgments after recording reasons to dismiss the applications. The applicant has not challenged either of the Orders dated 15.01.2015 or 10.01.2020. In case the applicant was aggrieved by the dismissal, he could have approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP which he has not done. The applicant had filed an application on 15.01.2020 for early hearing but the said application was withdrawn on 17.01.2020 which gives the impression that the applicant was not interested in getting his appeal heard expeditiously. The applicant by way of this application is again seeking suspension of the order of conviction on the ground that he wishes to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024, which according to the applicant, is a fresh ground and circumstance thereby relying on the case of Dilip Ray. The facts and circumstances of the said case is different for the reason that there the application seeking suspension of conviction was not rejected. If the applicant genuinely wished to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections, he could have filed the present application earlier and could have sought for early hearing. Further, the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands, since he failed to disclosed that he had filed two similar applications on earlier occasions and the same was dismissed. Therefore, this is not a fit case to suspend order dated 03.06.2010. There are no extraordinary circumstances to allow the present application. Hence, the application stands dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement
