The application challenges the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, who mechanically rejected the application for stay of conviction without evaluating the facts. The applicant, a senior politician, argues that not staying the conviction will disqualify him under the Representation of the People Act, affecting his right to represent his constituency. The court must balance the integrity of the electoral process with the applicant's right to represent. The prosecution argues that a stay of conviction should only be granted in exceptional cases and that the applicant has not made a compelling case. Various legal precedents are cited by both parties to support their arguments.

Application Grounds

• Mechanical Order by Sessions Judge: The judge rejected the stay application without evaluating the facts.
• No Prejudice to Prosecution: Allowing the application wouldn't harm the prosecution.
• Impact on Representation: Without staying the conviction, the applicant faces disqualification affecting his right to represent the constituency.

Background of the Applicant

• Political Career: Senior member of Indian National Congress, former Cabinet Minister, and Maharashtra Legislative Assembly member.
• Criminal Allegations: Accused in Crime No.101/2002 for misappropriating funds of Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank (NDCC Bank).

Details of Conviction

• Conviction and Sentence: Convicted under Sections 409, 406, 468, and 471 read with 120-B of IPC; sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines.
• Role in Offense: Accused of conspiring with brokers and misappropriating funds through fake investment in government securities.

Arguments by Senior Counsel Shri S.K. Mishra

• Exceptional Case for Stay: Conviction causes irreversible damage affecting representation rights.
• Legal Precedents: Cited various cases where stay of conviction was granted in exceptional circumstances.

Prosecution's Counterarguments by Special Public Prosecutor Shri Siddharth Dave

• Different Jurisdictions: Suspension of sentence and stay of conviction have different considerations.
• Economic Offense: Accused involved in serious economic offense with no exceptional grounds for stay.

Legal Precedents Cited

• Defense Cases:
  • Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang
  • Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi
  • Afjal Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
  • K. Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani vs. State Tamil Nadu
  • Chanda Ram Shivsharan vs. The State of Maharashtra
• Prosecution Cases:
  • K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh
  • Ravikant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
  • Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab
  • Sanjay Dutt vs. State of Maharashtra
  • State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar
  • Lok Prahari through its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla vs. Election Commission of India
  • Lily Thomas vs. Union of India

Court's Consideration

• Issue at Hand: Whether the accused has made an exceptional case for stay of conviction.
• Prosecution's Evidence: Detailed investigation and audit reports highlighting the accused's role in financial irregularities and misappropriation.

Conclusion

• Exceptional Cases Only: Stay of conviction is reserved for rare, exceptional cases where not granting it would cause irreversible damage.
• Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of R.P. Act: Conviction results in disqualification from the date of conviction for six years post-release.