Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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

 

Latest Legal News