HC refuses to suspend conviction of NCP's poll aspirant

Image
Press Trust of India Mumbai
Last Updated : Feb 05 2017 | 2:57 PM IST
The Bombay High Court has refused to suspend the conviction of a Pune-based NCP member in an attempt to murder case, to allow him to file nomination for the upcoming Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation election.
Justice A M Badar refused to suspend the conviction of Navnath Taras while observing that provisions of Representation of the People Act clearly state that persons convicted and awarded sentence of more than two years cannot contest elections.
"Conviction of an accused in a criminal case cannot be suspended mechanically just to fulfil his wishes," the court said while dismissing the application filed by Taras seeking suspension of his conviction pending appeal.
Taras wanted to file his nomination so that he could contest the upcoming municipal corporation election.
In 2012, Taras and three others were sentenced by a Pune sessions court to five years of rigorous imprisonment for attempting to kill a rival Congress activist during the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) elections held in 2007.
Justice Badar noted that Taras was convicted under the serious charge of attempt to murder, in an incident which has its origin in the PCMC election.
"No doubt, right to vote and right to contest are constitutional rights of a citizen. But at the same time, one will have to keep in mind that the object of Legislature in enacting the Representation of the People Act, is to keep away a person convicted of offences and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for more than two years from contesting elections," Justice Badar said recently.
"The powers to suspend a conviction are to be exercised with due care and caution and that too in exceptional circumstances. In the case in hand, the applicant has been convicted of offence under section 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC and the cause of prosecuting him was the earlier election of municipal corporation," the court noted.
The high court refused to accept the argument of the applicant's lawyer that the trial court had acquitted four persons during trial and that evidence against the present applicant was weak.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Feb 05 2017 | 2:57 PM IST

Next Story