Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by politician Abbas Ansari seeking quashing of order passed by Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court refused to stay/suspend the conviction passed against him by the Trial Court in a criminal case filed under Sections 171F, 506, 186, 189, 153A, 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., allowed the petition, holding that it was not a case where the prayer to suspend the conviction should be refused.
Background
Abbas was a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) from Mau, Uttar Pradesh. At a public gathering, he threatened the district administration regarding an election. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against him under Sections 171F, 189, 153A, 506 and 120B of the IPC
Subsequently, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000 under Section 171F, two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 3,000 under Sections 189 and 153A, one-year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs 2,000 under Section 506, and six-months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,000 under Section 120B. Consequently, under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’), he was disqualified as MLA.
Aggrieved, he filed an appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal, he sought a stay of the sentence and conviction order. The Appellate Court vide the impugned order stayed the sentence but refused to stay the conviction. Hence, the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court reiterated that the Appellate Court’s power to grant a stay on a conviction order should not be exercised routinely. The power should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases where, due to his conviction, the appellant suffered irreversible damages. Thus, at this stage, the Court could only analyse the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, despite the observations made in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 2 SCC 574, the Court stated that it could consider whether the offences were, prima facie, made out from the evidence produced by the prosecution. In this regard, the Court referred to Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India, (2018) 18 SCC 114, wherein it was held that the authority vested in the Appellate Court to stay a conviction ensures that a conviction on untenable or frivolous ground does not operate to cause serious prejudice.
Upon perusal of Section 8 of the RP Act, the Court stated that it reflected that if a person was convicted under Section 153A or 171F of the IPC, and even if the sentence was only a fine, then he shall also be disqualified. Therefore, for the disqualification of a person from the post of an MLA, even his mere conviction for offences under Sections 153A or 171F was sufficient, irrespective of the sentence awarded to him. Further, the Court noted that Section 8 of the RP Act also reflected that if an individual was not convicted for offences mentioned therein, but he has been convicted for other offences and awarded a two-year sentence, even then, he shall be disqualified and continue to be disqualified for six more years after his release.
In the case at hand, the Court noted that, except for the speech, there was no other evidence against him.
Considering the speech, the Court stated that it appeared that, prima facie, the offence under Section 153A of the IPC was not made out against Abbas. This was because the evidence did not reflect that his act was either prejudicial to public harmony or could promote enmity between different groups, which was necessary for an offence. In this regard, the Court referred to Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678.
Further, the Court stated that from the speech delivered by Abbas, prima facie, it could not be reflected that he committed the offence of either undue influence or personation at an election under Section 171 F of the IPC, as the only evidence against him was that during his public speech, he threatened the district authorities regarding an election.
Regarding Section 189 of the IPC, the Court stated that merely by threatening district administration in public speech though about an election, prima facie, it cannot be said that he committed offence under Section 189 IPC as from the evidence prima facie it could not be reflected that act of revisionist was to give threat of injury to public servant.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Abbas was disqualified as an MLA because he was awarded two years imprisonment under Section 189. Thus, it was important to analyse whether there was a reason why he was awarded the maximum sentence of two years. Upon perusal of the conviction order, the Court stated that the Trial Code observed that it was inappropriate to award a lesser punishment, but the order did not reflect why it was necessary to award the maximum sentence.
“He was a sitting MLA and due to his conviction in the present matter, he has been disqualified. Therefore, on one hand, his conviction deprived his constituency of legitimate representation, and on the other hand, it also restrained him from representing his constituency. Therefore, it cannot be said that his conviction does not cause any irreversible consequences.”
In this regard, the Court referred to Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, (2024) 2 SCC 595, wherein it was observed that a person in a public place is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. Further, under Section 8 of the RP Act, the disqualification of a person not only affected the right of the public representative to continue in public life, but also affected the right of the electorate who elected him to represent their constituency.
The Court remarked that, though being MLA, Abbas should have restrained himself; refusing to stay his conviction merely on the grounds of delivering such a speech amounted to injustice not only to the revisionist but also to the electorate who elected him. It appeared that while refusing the prayer to stay the conviction, the Appellate Court did not consider this aspect.
Furthermore, the Court stated that not suspending his conviction order indicated far-reaching consequences as he was not just disqualified presently, but also remained disqualified to contest the future election.
Regarding the criminal antecedents, the Court noted that, as per the record, Abbas had a criminal history of eleven other cases, but they were filed after 2019. Three cases related to the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, and Sections 171 H, 188, and 341 of the IPC had been quashed, whereas proceedings under Section 133 of the RP Act were pending. None of the cases related to heinous offences like rape, murder, etc.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the purpose of the introduction of Section 8 of the RP Act was to resolve the issue of criminalisation of politics and to depoliticise criminality. However, while deciding the issue at hand, it was also necessary to consider the other facts and circumstances of the case, like what the actual allegations against the person who had been disqualified due to his conviction and whether his criminal antecedents were of such a nature that they threatened the very idea of democracy.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the political background of him and his family, as well as his criminal antecedents, the Court opined that it was not a case where the prayer to suspend the conviction should be refused.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order was illegal and liable to be set aside to the extent that the prayer to suspend/stay the conviction order was refused. Thus, the order was set aside to that extent. The Court further directed that the conviction order shall remain suspended during the pendency of his appeal before the appellate court. Thus, the petition was allowed.
[Abbas Ansari v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5119, decided on 20-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Upendra Upadhyay
For the respondent: Advocate General Ajay Mishra, Additional Advocate Generals M.C. Chaturvedi and D.V. Singh, Government Advocate Patanjali Mishra, Additional Government Advocate Sanjay Singh
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
