The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application moved by Congress leader and former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rajendra Bharti seeking a stay and suspension of his conviction in a multi-year cooperative bank fraud case.

The Court observed that despite holding the dual responsibility of an elected public representative and the Chairman of the District Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank in Datia, Madhya Pradesh, Bharti abused his official position with an apparent vested interest to influence bank officials and enrich his family trust.

The Court highlighted that the offences of cheating and forgery wrapped in a criminal conspiracy possess a clear semblance to acts involving moral turpitude, and staying the conviction under such circumstances would fundamentally frustrate the very purpose, spirit, and objective of keeping individuals with stained credibility aloof from public life under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held, "Of course, the appellant does not have any prior involvement but the facts presented before this Court do indicate that he abused his position and failed to repose the faith that the people had in him. He was holding dual responsibility. Besides being an elected representative, he was also Chairman of the Bank in question. Despite the same, with apparent vested interest, he influenced the bank officials so that his own family Trust is benefited. He has been held guilty for committing conspiracy related to serious offences of forgery and cheating. These cannot be disregarded or sidelined while taking prima facie view of the matter as these offences have clear semblance to those concerning moral turpitude. Staying the conviction, in the present factual scenario, would rather frustrate the very purpose, spirit and objective behind incorporation of Section 8 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951."

 Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The brief facts of the case arose from a complaint filed by a District Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank, Datia, Madhya Pradesh, alleging that the Appellant, who was serving as the Chairman of the said bank at the relevant time, abused his official position to extend the term of a fixed deposit.

It was alleged that the appellant influenced and pressurized bank officials to extend the tenure of the fixed deposit from three years to fifteen years at an unauthorizedly high interest rate. 

Following a criminal complaint filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, pre-summoning evidence was recorded, and a co-convict, who was initially appearing as a witness, was subsequently summoned as an accused. Both individuals faced trial under the Indian Penal Code for serious offences, including cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine, read with criminal conspiracy. The trial was subsequently transferred to another jurisdiction under the directions of the Supreme Court of India.

Upon the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court found the accused persons guilty and convicted the appellant under the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the substantive offences of cheating and forgery, sentencing him to simple imprisonment alongside a fine. Although the substantive sentence was subsequently suspended by the appellate court, the appellant stood disqualified from his elected legislative office, prompting the present application for a stay and suspension of his conviction.

Submissions of the Parties

The Appellant vehemently argued that the appellate courts possess ample jurisdiction to suspend not only the execution of a sentence but also the operation of an order of conviction in exceptional circumstances. It was submitted that the trial court's judgment was highly flawed, perverse, and unsustainable, as the investigation was heavily tainted and politically motivated. The appellant contended that there was a complete absence of legally admissible evidence on record to link him to the offences, emphasizing that the conviction erroneously rested upon the statement of a co-accused which was subsequently retracted.

Furthermore, the appellant argued that since the prosecution failed to establish the substantive charges of forgery and cheating directly against him, he could not have been legally held guilty of those very offences merely by invoking them in conjunction with the charge of criminal conspiracy. 

On the contrary, the Respondents contended that the appellant occupied a position of public trust as the head of a cooperative financial institution and grossly misused his authority to enrich his own family trust at the expense of public funds. The respondents argued that the offences committed by the appellant involved severe moral turpitude, as they entailed deliberate acts of financial fraud, cheating, and the manipulation of official bank records, which fundamentally shock the moral conscience of society.

The prosecution further maintained that criminal conspiracy is a standalone, independent offense, and therefore, the trial court committed no illegality in convicting the appellant for conspiracy even if he was not the actual physical "maker" of the forged documents. It was submitted that the co-convict had voluntarily disclosed the entire fraudulent design in an affidavit, and a subsequent retraction could not wipe out the initial admission. 

Observations and Findings

Evaluating the contention regarding irreversible consequences and personal hardship arising out of the impending bye-elections, the Court held that the impending electoral process did not inherently constitute a compelling ground for relief. It was observed that hardship must be individual-centric rather than a universal fallout touching an entire class of disqualified elected representatives.

The Court reiterated that once a competent criminal court pronounces a verdict of guilt, the initial presumption of innocence is no longer available to the convict, and any subsequent disqualification from contesting elections is a natural statutory consequence that cannot be lightly bypassed merely because the applicant happens to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

Upon a prima facie scrutiny of the Trial Court record and the impugned judgment, the Court found no palpable perversity or manifest error gross on the face of the record that would render the conviction unsustainable.

It was observed that the evidence prima facie established a systematic and calculated conspiracy where a fixed deposit was unauthorizedly altered in stages to extend its tenure from three years to fifteen years, allowing a family trust associated with the appellant to wrongfully draw an exceptionally high rate of interest for over a decade.

The Court took note of the material on record, including the admissions made by the co-convict in a prior affidavit, indicating that the fabrications were executed under the influence and at the behest of the appellant.

"Once any such elected representative is held guilty, he automatically, in view of the legislative mandate, incurs disqualification, which, in turn, can result in bye-election if the remainder period is substantial one. Thus, any elected representative, in such a situation, would come up with a similar prayer and, therefore, aspect related to irreversible consequence would, generally speaking, be inherent. Viewed thus, the hardship is not classic to an individual, but a universal and omnibus one, touching the entire class. Such hardship is, thus, not for the appellant alone and would be true for all others who held the seat and on pronouncement of guilt stand disqualified and, therefore, in such a situation the factual matrix of any given case becomes the most dominant factor", the Court held. 

The Court reasoned that granting a stay on the conviction under such circumstances would frustrate the very objective, spirit, and purpose of the Representation of the People Act, which seeks to keep individuals with stained credibility aloof from public affairs.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application seeking the suspension and stay of the order of conviction.

Cause Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5546] 

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, Advocate Abhik Chimni, Advocate Pranjal, Advocate Ayan Dasgupta, Advocate Moksha Sharma

Respondents: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar, Advocate Manish Kumar, Advocate Amitabh Narendra, Advocate Ashish Ranjan, Advocate Aparajita Jha, Advocate Vignesh, Advocate Rohini Prasad, Advocate Prateek Kumar, Advocate Deepak Sharma, Advocate Devansh Rai, Advocate Kumar Utsav, Advocate Ashish Shukla

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: