Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Suspension of Conviction Granted to Dilip Ray, Former Minister, in Light of Irreversible Consequence and Damage to Political Career: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi, presided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, suspended the conviction of Dilip Ray, the former Minister of State for Coal, under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. This decision, dated April 8, 2024, was taken to enable his participation in the upcoming Odisha Legislative Assembly elections.

The judgement revolves around the suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ray, convicted for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, sought suspension citing his intention to contest upcoming elections and his long-standing political career.

The case traces back to the allocation of coal mining area in Jharkhand, which resulted in Ray’s conviction in 2020. With elections looming, Ray argued that his disqualification from contesting would cause irreparable harm to his political career. The prosecution, however, emphasized the gravity of his offences, involving moral turpitude.

The court acknowledged the legal precedents supporting suspension of conviction, particularly in cases leading to irreversible consequences. Justice Sharma noted Ray’s age (71 years), his distinguished political career spanning over 35 years, and the impending elections. The decision was influenced by Supreme Court judgments like Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) and others, which emphasized evaluating the peculiar facts of each case.

Irreversible Damage Criterion: The court found that not suspending Ray’s conviction would lead to irreversible damage to his career, which couldn’t be compensated later, even if acquitted.

Comparison with Other Cases: The court distinguished this case from others like K.C. Sareen v. CBI, highlighting the unique circumstances of Ray’s case, including his long political service and age.

Legal Precedents: The judgement of Afjal Ansari was pivotal in understanding the implications of suspension in cases of potential irreversible consequences.

Decision: The High Court allowed the application, suspending Ray’s conviction during the appeal’s pendency. This suspension, however, does not equate to an acquittal but is contingent on the peculiarities of Ray’s circumstances, including his age and political career.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2024

Dilip Ray v. Central Bureau of Investigation

 

Similar News