Cannot have separate norm for MP, MLAs in suspension of conviction, sentence: SC

New Delhi, Mar 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday told NCP leader and Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal that there cannot be a separate norm for a lawmaker on suspension of conviction and sentence in a criminal case.   A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said, "When there is a prima facie opinion based on materials before the court that it is a case of acquittal only then suspension of conviction and sentence can be done. There cannot be a separate norm for Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly for suspension of conviction and sentences."   The remarks were made by the court after senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Faizal, said that what weighed in the mind of the Kerala High Court while suspending his conviction and sentence is that he is an elected representative and if his conviction and sentence is not stayed it will lead to his disqualification and subsequently polls need to be held.   The bench said that it has to be in exceptional circumstances when the conviction needs to be stayed and it cannot be a norm.

Justice Joseph told Singhvi that there were roughly 16 injuries including on the brain of the victim and the statement of the local doctor is that had he not received timely treatment, he would have died.   "There is also a statement that the victim was airlifted and put in the ICU of the hospital, where he had to undergo treatment for two weeks and the high court says it is a case of simple injury. Principally, it is the act and intention and not the result, which counts," the bench said.   Singhvi said injury is not caused by sharp edge weapons but the blunt side and statements of prosecution witnesses keeps on getting better and better like wine.   Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union Territory, said that there are three points which are of concern - first the fact that the seat will fall vacant and polls would cost the exchequer.   "Secondly suspension of conviction and sentence should be in rarest of the cases and thirdly the court has to see the criminal antecedents of the convict," he said.

The bench asked Singhvi whether the high court should go into all these aspects.