In its detailed order staying the conviction of Maharashtra Agriculture Manikrao Kokate, a sessions court in Nashik said that if the stay was not granted, his resultant disqualification would lead to a re-election that would require “huge public money”.
On March 5, the court had accepted Kokate’s plea to put a stay on the two-year conviction handed to him by a magistrate court in a 30-year-old cheating case. The order was made available Thursday.
“…From last more than 35 years the appellant No. 1 (Kokate) is said to be representing public at different forums and the electorate have shown their faith in appellant No. 1 and elected him as member of Legislative Assembly. If appellant No. 1 will suffer disqualification then there will be re-election which will require huge public money,” District Judge Nitin Jivane said.
The court said Kokate was also out on bail throughout the trial and was granted bail after his conviction by the trial court. Hence if the conviction is not stayed, prejudice will be suffered by him, the court said.
Kokate had submitted that the appeal against his conviction would take time to hear, and that if his conviction was not stayed till then, he would be disqualified as per the Representation of Peoples Act. He had also relied on judgments including one where Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was granted similar relief.
In 1995, former minister Tukaram Dighole filed a case against Kokate and his brother, Sunil, alleging that they had forged documents to fraudulently acquire two flats in Nashik, which were obtained through the chief minister’s discretionary quota reserved for economically weaker people.
On February 20, a magistrate court had found them both guilty and sentenced them to two years in jail.
Story continues below this ad
The court also considered that while the affidavits sworn by Kokate to claim the flats were dating back to 1989, the prosecution had not produced any evidence to prove what his economic status was at that time. It said that the trial court had relied on documents not proved by prosecution witnesses and passed the order based on “surmise and presumption”. It also said that the trial court, despite not having the jurisdiction, had also given directions for cancellation of the allotment of the flats.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd