Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. The petitioner has been convicted of serious offences. Of course, his conviction and sentence have been challenged before this Court in an appeal. The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and becaus..

Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. The petitioner has been convicted of serious offences. Of course, his conviction and sentence have been challenged before this Court in an appeal. The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his contribution to art and cinema he has got large number of fans throughout the country and abroad. The petitioner is not a habitual criminal nor has it been brought to the notice of the Court that he was involved in any other criminal case. Despite all these favourable circumstances, this is not a fit case where conviction and sentence could be suspended so that the bar u/s 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. [Para 6] [193-C-F] 1.2. Law prohibits any person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the election and such person shall be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. In the face of such a provision, the power of the Court u/s 389 Cr.P.C. shall be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. [Para 6] [193-G-H] 1.3. In view of the serious offence of which the petitioner has been convicted by the Special Judge, this Court is not inclined to suspend the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge. [Para 8] [194-D] Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab AND ANOTHER (2007) 2 SCC 574, distinguished. Prakash Kumar vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409 and Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513, cited. Case Law Reference: (2007) 2 SCC 574 distinguished Para 4 (2005) 2 SCC 409 cited Para 4 (1995) 2 SCC 513 cited Para 4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl.M.Nos. 4087, 5229, 5230, 5237 AND 5314 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007. IN From the Judgment AND Order dated 31.07.2007 of the Designated Court Greater Bombay, Maharashtra in Bomb Blast Case No. 1/1993. Gopal Subramanium, ASG, Harish N. Salve, Mukul Rohtagi, Soli J. Sorabjee, K.T.S. Tulsi, Ranjit Kumar, Kanak Raj, Mukul Rohtagi, Ankur Chawla, Gaurav Bhatia, Minakshi, Hari Shankar K. Harshvardhan Jha, Vikas Singh, Ashish Jha, Alok Saran, R.S. Massy Verma (for T.N. Rao), Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla, Sunil Fernandes, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rajat Jariwal, Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Karan Singh, Hari Shankar K. Vikas Singh, Jangra, Satya Kam, Raghenth Basant (for B.K. Prasad) for the appearing parties.

Arms Act, 1959

Applying the law consistently laid down by this Court including the principles noticed in Vadlakonda Lenin (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the abse..

Applying the law consistently laid down by this Court including the principles noticed in Vadlakonda Lenin (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the absence of any reasonable explanation on the part of the accused, cannot give rise to any other conclusion except that it is the accused alone who had abducted deceased Krishan Kumar and had killed him at Haridwar. We, therefore, have to conclude that the conviction of the accused appellants do not call for any interference. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, as upheld by the High Court. Both the appeals consequently are dismissed