JUDGMENT
S. Rafat Alam and Vineet Saran, JJ.
1. This is intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court arising from the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court dated 10.1.2008 dismissing the petitioner-appellant’s Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1301 of 2008.
2. It appears that the appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Collector/District Magistrate, Etah dated 18/19.12.2007 whereby he was removed from the post of Pradhan in exercise of the power under Section 95(1 )(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act) challenged its validity in the aforesaid writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge, having heard learned Counsel for the parties, found that the appellant having been convicted for the offence of dacoity and attempt to murder in sessions trial, is not entitled to hold public office of Pradhan of the village and hence did not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the Collector/District Magistrate impugned in the writ petition.
3. We have heard Sri S.A.N. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 4 and have perused the record.
Sri S.A.N. learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended before us against the conviction the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5151 of 2007 wherein he has been released on bail and the sentences have been suspended vide order dated 30.8.2007, hence he has a right to hold the office of Pradhan. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 149.
4. We are not impressed with the submission made before us for the reason that the suspension of sentence does not amount to washing out the conviction. It is admitted that the appeal has only been admitted and the appellant has been released on bail and the sentence has been suspended till the disposal of the appeal, which does not amount to setting aside the conviction. Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides about disqualification of the membership where under a person having been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being the Pradhan or a Member of a Gram Panchayat. Under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act a Pradhan can be removed if he is accused or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude or suffers from any of the disqualification under Chapter II-A of Section 5-A of the Act.)
5. In the instant case, since the appellant has been convicted and the appeal is pending, hence he has rightly been removed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. Reliance on the judgment of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha and Ors. (supra) is misplaced and is of no help to the petitioner-appellant. In para-14 of the judgment their Lordships have observed that the suspension does not amount to temporarily washing out the conviction. It has further been observed that the conviction still remains, only the operation of the order and the sentence remain suspended and that does not amount to temporary stay of the conviction. Besides that a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan has held that the suspension is not of conviction or sentence, but it is only the execution of the sentence or order which is suspended and not obliterated.
6. Therefore, in view of the exposition of law made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any factual or legal error in the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed.