# Annu Tandon & Ors v. State

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 931
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-25
- **Case number:** Crl. Appl. No. 638 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/annu-tandon-ors-v-state-48082
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
389-
Suspension
of
sentence-
As
the
appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 have not
come up with any specific consequence
which they are likely to face due to
their
conviction,
their
prayer
for
suspension of conviction and sentence
appears to be barred by the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
Rama Narang.

Settled law that the person seeking stay or
suspension of the sentence has to state
the specific consequences that he is likely
to face due to his conviction, in absence of
which the order staying the suspension of
sentence cannot be granted.
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 389- Suspension
of sentence- None of the prosecution
witnesses has been able to establish that
the appellant no. 4 obstructed or caused
to obstruct the train and his conviction
and sentence, prima facie, appears to be
without any specific evidence against him.

While considering the suspension/ stay of
sentence only the broad features of the case
which are prima facie in favour of the accused
are to be seen.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 389- Suspension
of sentence - Representation of the People
Act, 1951- Section 8 (3) - The appellant
no. 4 has specifically stated that he is
aspiring to contest for the post of Member
of Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh-
It is clear that unless the conviction and
sentence of the appellant no. 4 is stayed,
he will not be able to contest the election
as he will be disqualified under Section 8
(3) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 and he would suffer irreparable
loss and injury.

Where the specific consequences likely to be
faced by the accused as a result of his
conviction are stated and the broad features of
the case are prima facie in favour of the
accused, then it would be appropriate to stay/
suspend the sentence. (Para 24, 29, 30, 32, 37)

Application accordingly disposed of. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon/ cited
:-

## Text

1 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
931
the judgment and order of conviction and
punishment /sentence passed by the court
below with direction to the trial court for a
de novo consideration from the stage of
examination of the appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C in the light of the observations
made above. This shall be without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to
call/recall a witness or witnesses to prove
the recovery made from the scene of the
crime by the Field Unit Team as also to
produce the items recovered by Field Unit
Team as well as the Investigating Officer so
as to connect/ link the forensic reports with
the items seized / recovered. Likewise, it
shall also be open for the appellant to apply
for recall of any of the prosecution witness
or witnesses or to produce expert report in
rebuttal, if so advised. If any such recall
application is filed the same shall be
considered
on
merit
without
being
prejudiced
by
earlier
rejection
of
application 37 Kha. The matter shall,
thereafter, be decided on the basis of
available material on record, in accordance
with law. It is expected that the trial shall
be completed expeditiously and that all
parties shall cooperate in that effort.

28. As we have directed for a re-trial,
we do not deem it appropriate to express
our opinion on the merit of the prosecution
case. Rather, we make it clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the merit of
the prosecution case as also whether on the
evidence already on record, conviction of
the appellant could be sustained or not.

29. The appeal stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.

30. It may be clarified that as we are
directing for a re-trial, our order, by itself,
should not be interpreted as a ground to
release the appellant on bail and,
therefore, we clarify that the appellant shall
be treated as an under-trial prisoner till his
release, either on bail or otherwise.

31. Let this order be certified and
communicated to the court below and the
lower court record be also sent to the trial
court for compliance.
----------
(2022)01ILR A931
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Appl. No. 638 of 2021

Annu Tandon & Ors . ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Rohit Tripathi, Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mrs. Suniti Sachan

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
389-
Suspension
of
sentence-
As
the
appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 have not
come up with any specific consequence
which they are likely to face due to
their
conviction,
their
prayer
for
suspension of conviction and sentence
appears to be barred by the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
Rama Narang.

Settled law that the person seeking stay or
suspension of the sentence has to state
the specific consequences that he is likely
to face due to his conviction, in absence of
which the order staying the suspension of
sentence cannot be granted.
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 389- Suspension
of sentence- None of the prosecution
witnesses has been able to establish that
the appellant no. 4 obstructed or caused
to obstruct the train and his conviction
and sentence, prima facie, appears to be
without any specific evidence against him.

While considering the suspension/ stay of
sentence only the broad features of the case
which are prima facie in favour of the accused
are to be seen.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 389- Suspension
of sentence - Representation of the People
Act, 1951- Section 8 (3) - The appellant
no. 4 has specifically stated that he is
aspiring to contest for the post of Member
of Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh-
It is clear that unless the conviction and
sentence of the appellant no. 4 is stayed,
he will not be able to contest the election
as he will be disqualified under Section 8
(3) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 and he would suffer irreparable
loss and injury.

Where the specific consequences likely to be
faced by the accused as a result of his
conviction are stated and the broad features of
the case are prima facie in favour of the
accused, then it would be appropriate to stay/
suspend the sentence. (Para 24, 29, 30, 32, 37)

Application accordingly disposed of. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon/ cited
:-

1. Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs St. of Punj. & anr;
(2007) 2 SCC 574 ( relied)

2. Ravikant S. Patil Vs Sarvabhouma S. Bagali;
(2007) 1 SCC 673 ( relied)

3. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs U.O.I &
anr; (2018) 17 SCC 324 ( cited)

4. Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re) Vs Commr.
of Police & ors; (2020) 10 SCC 439 (cited)

5. Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang; (1995) 2
SCC 513 ( cited)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

 (Crl. Misc. Application No. 48908 of
2021 - Application under Section 389
Cr.P.C.)

1. By means of this application under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the appellants have
prayed that the order of their conviction
and sentence by means of the judgment
dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Special
Judge,
MP/MLA/Additional
Sessions,
Judge, Court No. 19, Lucknow in Criminal
Case No. 578 of 2020 arising out of case
Crime No. 243 of 2017, under Section 174
(a) of the Railways Act, 1989, Police
Station RPF Post Unnao be stayed till
disposal of this appeal.

2. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohit
Tripahti, Advocate, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mrs. Suniti Sachan,
Advocate
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
-
State
through
Railway
Protection Force and perused the record.

3. By means of the judgment dated
18.03.2021 passed by the learned Special
Judge,
MP/MLA/Additional
Sessions
Judge, Court No. 19, Lucknow in Criminal
Case No. 578 of 2020, all the appellants
have been convicted of committing an
offence under Section 174 (a) of the
Railways Act, 1989 and on the same day an
order was passed imposing a punishment of
two years simple imprisonment and they
were directed to pay to the Railway
Administration a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each
towards damages and expenses, failing
which they will have to undergo simple
1 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
933
imprisonment for additional period of one
month.

4. Against the aforesaid order dated
18.03.2021, the appellants have filed the
instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374
(2) Cr.P.C. which was admitted by means of
an order dated 25.03.2021.

5. On 25.03.2021, this Court has
admitted the appeal by the following order: -

"The present appeal under Section
374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is moved against the
conviction order couples with order of
sentence dated 18.3.2021 passed by Special
Judge,
M.P./M.L.A./Additional
Sessions
Judge, Court No.19, Lucknow in Sessions
Case No.578/2020 (State Vs. Annu Tondon &
Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.243/2017
under Section 174A, Railway Act, registered
in Police Station- RPF post Unnao, whereby
the trial court has convicted the appellant
nos.1 to 4 namely Annu Tondon, Surya
Narayan Yadav, Amit Shukla and Ankit
Prihar in aforesaid offence sentencing simple
imprisonment for two years and the fine
under Section 357 and 359 of the Cr.P.C.
alongwith the cost amounting to Rs.25,000/-
each as well on failure an additional simple
imprisonment of one month.

Since, office has reported no defect and
the appeal is filed within time, relief is
statutory, therefore, appeal is admitted. "

6. Regarding the instant application
under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., the Court has
passed the following order: -

"An application under Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C. bearing C.M.A. No. 48908 of 2021
also presented for the suspension of
punishment.

Learned counsel for the respondent
may file objection, if any, within ten days,
providing copy thereof to learned counsel
for the appellants.

List on 8.4.2021 as requested by
learned counsel for the appellants for
arguments over the application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. "

7. Thereafter, the case was listed on
23.07.2021, on which date, the learned
counsel for the respondent sought further
time to file the objection against the
application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
which was granted. Since then the case has
been listed on numerous occasions but but
till date no objection has been filed against
the aforesaid application.

8. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal has submitted
that the proceedings were initiated by a
report dated 12.06.2017 lodged by the
Railway Protection Force personnel stating
that when Train No. 18191 was entering
Unnao Railway Station on 12.06.2017,
about 150 to 200 persons carrying the flag of
a political party stood up on the line no. 2
near Hardoi ROB and started raising slogans
in support of their demands due to which the
Driver of Train No. 18191 had stopped the
Train. Thereafter, some persons boarded on
the engine. Upon enquiry, it transpired that
the demonstration was being led by Annu
Tandon - former Member of Parliament
(appellant no. 1), Surya Narayan Yadav -
District
President,
District
Congress
Committee (appellant no. 2) and Amit
Shukla - City President, City Congress
Committee (appellant no. 3). Due to this
demonstration,
railway movement was
obstructed and Train No. 18191 got delayed
by 12 minutes. This act is covered by
Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act, 1989.
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal has submitted
that the learned Trial Court has passed the
order of conviction and sentence on the
basis of a patently wrong finding that from
an analysis of the witnesses produced by
the prosecution, it appears that the
prosecution has established the presence of
the accused-persons at the time and place
of occurrence and it has also been
established
that
the
witnesses
have
witnessed the incident themselves. The
finding of the Court below that there is no
such statement in the statements of the
witnesses from which the prosecution
version may appear to be doubtful is
perverse as none of the witnesses has given
any such statement as may establish
commission of an offence under Section
174 (a) of the Railways Act, 1989 by any
of the appellants. She has taken the Court
through the statements of witnesses, copies
whereof have been filed with the affidavit
filed in support of the application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C.

10. The Station Master (PW-1) has
stated that unknown persons making
demonstration had stopped the train due to
which the rail traffic got obstructed. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he does
not recognize any of the persons making
demonstration and he did not go to the
place of demonstration because he could
not leave his office.

11. PW-2 who is a Constable of the
Railway Protection Force has stated that
about 150 to 200 persons had stopped the
train and some of them had boarded on the
engine of the train. The demonstration was
being led by Annu Tandon, Surya Narayan
Yadav and Amit Shukla - the appellants no.
1, 2 & 3 respectively, and they were
demanding that the City Magistrate should
come at the spot, to whom they wanted to
give a representation addressed to the
President of India. The personnel of the
Railway Protection Force did not use force
and for this reason train's operation was
obstructed from 11:38 to 11:50. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he does
not know as to from which direction the
train was coming, he had a mobile phone
but he did not take any photograph of the
persons making demonstration.

12. PW-3 who is the Guard of the
train has stated that the train stopped before
reaching the platform and when he
enquired its reason from the Driver of the
train, he informed that some persons were
carrying out a demonstration and some of
them are standing on the railway track and
engine, and for this reason the train cannot
move. In his cross-examination, he has
stated that he did not get off the train and
got to see it by himself. He was informed
by the Driver that some persons making
demonstration were sitting on the railway
track and for this reason he had to stop the
train. However, he has also not stated
anything
about
the
identity
of
the
appellants.

13. PW-4 who is the Inspector-inCharge of RPF has stated that some persons
making demonstration had stopped the train
at the entry point of the Station Platform
and in the leadership of Annu Tandon,
Suryan Narayan Yadav and Amit Shukla -
the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively,
and they were demanding to call the City
Magistrate so that they may give a
representation to him. He has stated that
some persons had boarded on the engine
and some were standing on the track. In his
cross-examination, he has stated that a
representation was handed over which was
signed by Surya Narayan Yadav (appellant
no. 2), Annu Tandon (appellant no. 1) and
1 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
935
Amit Shukla (appellant no. 3). He did not
recognize any of them, he had only seen the
photograph of Annu Tandon.

14. PW-5 who is the engine driver has
also not made any statement regarding the
identity of the appellants and he has said
that he does not know regarding the
persons making demonstration.

15. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal has also
placed the statements of all the appellants
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where
all of whom had denied the allegation of
stopping the train and have stated that they
did not play any role in stopping the train
and the demonstration was going on in an
open area besides the track.

16. The submission of Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal is that there being no evidence
establishing that the appellants were
present at the time and place of occurrence
and to establish that they have committed
an offence under Section 174 (a) of the
Railways Act, 1989, the judgment under
appeal is unsustainable and there is strong
likelihood that the appellants will succeed
and the judgment & order dated 18.03.2021
convicting and punishing them will be setaside.

17. Regarding the scope of Section
389 (1) Cr.P.C., Ms. Kamini Jaiswal has
placed reliance on the judgments of the
Apex Court in the cases of Navjot Singh
Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and another;
(2007) 2 SCC 574 and Ravikant S. Patil
vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali; (2007) 1 SCC
673. She has further submitted that the
alleged offending act was done as a part of
a demonstration and protest being carried
out, which is a fundamental right under the
Constitution, as has been held by the Apex
Court in the cases of Mazdoor Kisan
Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India and
another; (2018) 17 SCC 324 and Amit
Sahni
(Shaheen
Bagh,
In
Re)
vs.
Commissioner of Police and others;
(2020) 10 SCC 439 and the allegations do
not include the charge of any corruption or
any misconduct involving moral turpitude.

18. Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, on
the other hand, has submitted that for
suspension of conviction, there must be a
reasonable possibility of acquittal in the
appeal but in this case the appellants have
been identified by the witnesses. In this
regard, she has drawn attention of the Court
to para 9 of the judgment of the learned
Trial Court in which the statement of PW-2
has been referred to, who has taken the
names of the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3. She
has further submitted that the appellants are
political persons and there is every
likelihood that they will indulge in similar
activities again. Their act created trouble
for the railways and its passenger and it
held up the entire system of railways and
created disturbance in the entire rail
network. Therefore, the application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected.

19. I have considered the submissions
made by the parties' counsel and gone
thorough the record.

20. In Rama Narang vs. Ramesh
Narang; (1995) 2 SCC 513, the Apex Court
was pleased to explain the scope of Section
389 (1) Cr.P.C. in the following words "In
certain situations the order of conviction can
be executable, in the sense, it may incur a
disqualification as in the instant case. In such
a case the power under Section 389(1) of the
Code could be invoked. In such situations the
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attention of the Appellate Court must be
specifically invited to the consequence that is
likely to fall to enable it to apply its mind to
the issue since under Section 389(1) it is
under an obligation to support its order 'for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing'. If the
attention of the Court is not invited to the
specific consequence which is likely to fall
upon conviction how can it be expected to
assign reasons relevant thereto? No one can
be allowed to play hide and seek with the
Court; he cannot suppress the precise purpose
for which he seeks suspension of the
conviction and obtain a general order of stay
and then contend that the disqualification has
ceased to operate." The Apex Court was
further pleased to hold that "In a fit case if the
High Court feels satisfied that the order of
conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so
that the convicted persons does not suffer
from a certain disqualification provided for in
any other statute, it may exercise the power
because otherwise the damage done cannot
be undone."

21. In Ravikant S. Patil (supra), relied
by the learned counsel for the appellants, the
Apex Court relied upon the judgment in
Rama Narang (supra) and was pleased to
clarify it further in the following words:

"It deserves to be clarified that an order
granting stay of conviction is not the rule but
is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases
depending upon the facts of a case. Where the
execution of the sentence is stayed, the
conviction continues to operate. But where
the conviction itself is stayed, the effect is that
the conviction will not be operative from the
date of stay. An order of stay, of course, does
not render the conviction non-existent, but
only non-operative."

22. In Ravikant S. Patil (supra), the
Apex Court relied upon an earlier decision
in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI; (2001)
6 SCC 584 in which it was held that
"although the power to suspend an order of
conviction, apart from the order of
sentence, is not alien to Section 389 (1) of
the Code, its exercise should be limited to
very exceptional cases". It was further held
that "merely because the convicted person
files an appeal to challenge his conviction,
the Court should not suspend the operation
of the conviction and the Court has a duty
to look at all aspects including the
ramifications of keeping such conviction in
abeyance".

23. In Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra),
the Apex Court was pleased to discuss the
law laid down in its previous decisions and
to summarize it as follows: -

"thus, the legal position is clear that
the appellate Court can suspend or grant
stay of order of conviction, but the person
seeking stay of the conviction should
specifically draw the attention of the
appellate Court to the consequences that
may arise if the conviction is not stayed.
Unless the attention of the Court is drawn
to the specific consequences that would
follow on account of the conviction, the
person convicted cannot obtain an order of
stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of
conviction can be resorted to in rare cases
depending upon the special facts of the
case."

24. After referring to the law on this
subject, the Apex Court proceeded to
examine the evidence led during the trial of
that case, though it expressly stated that for
the purpose of decision of the prayer for
staying
or
suspending
the order
or
conviction, it is not necessary to minutely
examine the merits of the case and after
pointing out the broad features of the case
1 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
937
which touched upon the culpability of the
accused. These broad features were, prima
facie, found to be in favour of the accused.
In this backdrop, the Apex Court held that
in the event prayer made by the appellant is
not granted, he would suffer irreparable
injury as he would not be able to contest for
the seat which he held and has fallen vacant
only
on
account
of
his
voluntary
resignation which he did on purely moral
grounds. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Apex Court
suspended the order of conviction in that
case.

25. In the light of the aforesaid legal
pronouncements, I proceed to examine the
application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C.
filed by the appellants.

26. Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., for
convenience is being reproduced here:

"389.
Suspension
of
sentence
pending the appeal; release of appellant
on bail. (1) Pending any appeal by a
convicted person, the Appellate Court may,
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing,
order that the execution of the sentence or
order appealed against be suspended and,
also, if he is in confinement, that he be
released on bail, or on his own bond."

27. In the affidavit filed in support of
the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
by the appellant no. 4, inter alia, it has been
stated that the prosecution case is based on
an
incident
of
peaceful
dharna
pradarshan/demonstration that took place
on 12.06.2017 in an open area near Unnao
Railway Station. The train was stopped by
the Driver as a precautionary measure
without there being any hindrance created
by
any
person
participating
in
the
demonstration. The appellants have no
criminal history. The appellant no. 4 has
contested
the
Legislative
Assembly
elections in the year 2012 and 2017 and is
aspiring to contest for the post of Member
of Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh
which is due to be held in February, 2022.
Contesting of election is very genuine
reason for staying the conviction.

28. As no objection has been filed
against the application in spite of grant of
repeated
opportunity,
the
aforesaid
averments remain uncontroverted.

29. The stay of conviction has been
sought on the ground that the appellant no.
4 wants to contest the upcoming Assembly
elections. However, there is no such
specific
averment
regarding
other
appellants and there there is only a general
averment that since the appellants are
social workers and politicians and aspirants
for various public offices through the
process of election, they stand debarred
from contesting election or holding any
public office in view of the quantum of
sentence that has been imposed in the
present matter.

30. As the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3
have not come up with any specific
consequence which they are likely to fact
due to their conviction, their prayer for
suspension of conviction and sentence
appears to be barred by the law laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Rama
Narang (supra) that "No one can be
allowed to play hide and seek with the
Court; he cannot suppress the precise
purpose for which he seeks suspension of
the conviction and obtain a general order
of stay and then contend that the
disqualification has ceased to operate." For
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the aforesaid reason, the prayer for
suspension of conviction and sentence in
respect of the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3
cannot be entertained.

31. Since the appellant no. 4 has
specifically stated that he is aspiring to
contest for the post of Member of
Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh
which is due to be held in February, 2022, I
proceed to examine the prayer in respect of
appellant no. 4.

32.

Section
8
(3)
of
the
Representation of the People Act, 1951
provides that a person convicted of any
offence and sentenced to imprisonment
for not less than two years other than any
offence referred to in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall be disqualified from
the date of such conviction and shall
continue to be disqualified for a further
period of six years since his release.
Therefore, it is clear that unless the
conviction and sentence of the appellant
no. 4 is stayed, he will not be able to
contest the election as he will be
disqualified under Section 8 (3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951
and he would suffer irreparable loss and
injury.

33. For granting the prayer for
suspension, this Court has to examine as to
whether the appellants have got a strong
chance of success in the appeal.

34. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal has submitted
that the appellants have wrongly been
convicted and sentenced for an offence
under Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act,
1989.

35. Section 174 of the Railways Act,
1989 provides as follows:

"174. Obstructing running of train,
etc.--If any railway servant (whether on
duty or otherwise) or any other person
obstructs or causes to be obstructed or
attempts to obstruct any train or other
rolling stock upon a railway,--

(a) by squatting or picketing or during
any Rail roko agitation or bandh; or

(b) by keeping without authority any
rolling stock on the railway; or

(c) by tampering with, disconnecting
or interfering in any other manner with its
hose pipe or tampering with signal gear or
otherwise, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine which may extend
to two thousand rupees, or with both."

36. Ms. Jaiswal has submitted that
there was no evidence to establish the
presence of the appellants at the time and
place of occurrence and the learned Trial
Court has wrongly held that the prosecution
has established the presence of all the
accused persons at the time and place of
occurrence.

37.

Considering
the
aforesaid
submissions and examining the statements
of witnesses in the light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court, prima facie, I am
of the view that none of the prosecution
witnesses has been able to establish that the
appellant no. 4 obstructed or caused to
obstruct the train and his conviction and
sentence, prima facie, appears to be
without any specific evidence against him.
Moreover, he has been convicted of an
offence arising out of the incidents
occurring during a dharna/demonstration
by a political party, which do not involve
any allegation of corruption or any offence
involving moral turpitude and unless the
conviction and sentence of the appellant no.
4 is suspended, he will not be able to put
1 All. Ramroop Vs. State
939
forth his candidature in the upcoming
Assembly elections in view of the bar
contained in Section 8 (3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951,
which would cause such an injury to the
appellant no. 4, as cannot be compensated
in case he succeeds in this appeal.

38. It would, therefore, be expedient
in the interest of justice that the conviction
and sentence in respect of the appellant
no. 4 be kept under suspension during
pendency of the appeal.

39 . Keeping in view the entire facts
ad circumstances of the case in light of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the case of the appellant no. 4
appears
to
be
an
exceptional
case
warranting exercise of powers conferred
on this Court under Section 389 (1)
Cr.P.C.

Order

40. The prayer for suspension of
conviction and sentence in respect of
appellants no. 1 (Annu Tandon), appellant
no. 2
(Surya Narayan
Yadav)
and
appellant no. 3 (Amit Shukla) is hereby
rejected.

41. The conviction and sentence of
appellant no. 4, namely, Ankit Parihar, son
of Sri Veer Pratap Singh passed by the
Special
Judge,
MP/MLA/Additional
Sessions, Court No. 19, Lucknow in
Criminal Case No. 578 of 2020 arising out
of case Crime No. 243 of 2017, under
Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act, 1989,
Police Station RPF Post Unnao is hereby
suspended during pendency of the appeal.

42. The application is disposed of.
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 638
of 2021

Appellant :- Annu Tandon And 3 Ors.

Respondent :- State Through Railway
Protection Force

Counsel
for
Appellant
:-
Rohit
Tripathi,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv

Counsel for Respondent :- Mrs.Suniti
Sachan

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

List the appeal in the next cause list.

The interim order previously granted
in favour of the appellants shall continue to
operate till the next date of listing.
----------
(2022)01ILR A939
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Jail Appeal No. 4722 of 2015

Ramroop ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Alka Srivastava, Sri Kailash Prakash
Pathak, Sri Kamta Prasad, Sri Suresh Chandra
Pandey, Sri S.K. Srivastava, Sri Vishnu Shankar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act,1872 -
Section 32- Dying Declaration- It is a fact
that the deceased died due to burn
injuries and, therefore, we concur with the
learned Judge that the death was a
homicidal death. Death is because of the