HC rejects Sunil Kedar’s plea to stay conviction
| Date :05-Jul-2024 |
Legal Correspondent
JUSTICE Urmila Joshi-Phalke, at the High Court here, has rejected the criminal application filed by former Maharashtra Minister Sunil Kedar, seeking stay to judgement and order of conviction in the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank (NDCCB) case. Kedar was named as accused No. 1 in NDDCB case and was convicted and sentenced on December 22, 2023, in the Regular Criminal Case No. 147/2002. The HC pronounced the judgement on July 3, 2024, with the clear observation that considering the object and purpose of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, merely because the accused has to represent his Assembly constituency, it could not be an exceptional circumstance for staying his conviction. An object of Legislatures in keeping away convicts from contesting elections is to be looked into while deciding such applications. The accused had challenged the said judgement before the Sessions Judge, by filing appeal No. 397 of 2023. The accused had also filed an application before the Sessions Judge here, for grant of stay to the said conviction, which was rejected by the order on December 30, 2023.
The application was filed on grounds that the Sessions Judge had passed a mechanical order without evaluating facts of the case and rejected the application for stay. Admittedly, while considering application for stay to conviction, it is a well-settled legal position that power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from order of sentence, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. The Court has a duty to look at all aspects including ramification of keeping such conviction in abeyance. In this case, the accused, who was the Chairman of the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank came to be tried for offences under sections 406, 409, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The Regular criminal case ended in conviction of the accused along with other co-accused for offences as the aforesaid. The incident resulted in prosecuting the accused. As per allegations, the accused was acting as the Chairman of the said bank and during his tenure, the investment portfolio of the bank was increased tremendously. During his Chairmanship, the accused has done various transactions of sale and purchase of physical securities from February 5, 2001 to February 28, 2001. Those securities were to the tune of Rs 124.76 crore. Those securities were not produced before the inspection team. Being the Chairman of the bank, the accused was responsible for those transactions.
The HC has pointed out that careful consideration of the trial court’s judgement suggests that transactions were entered into by the accused by violating norms of the Reserve Bank and NABARD. The securities were shown to be purchased, but actually it was not purchased and without purchasing it, the same was transferred to the private brokers. The accused who was custodian and entrusted with these public funds and the same was misappropriated. Thus, the involvement of the accused is in economic offence. As the appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Cr.PC., the appeal is both against conviction and sentence. Regarding staying the conviction, the High Court’s view is that where conviction, if allowed to operate would lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated in monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional situation. Thus, the settled law is that an order of granting stay of conviction should not be a rule but an exception.
According to the HC, an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. Senior counsel S K Mishra with Advocate Ayush Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Special Public Prosecutor Siddharth Dave assisted by APP N B Jawade represented the State.