Chandigarh, Oct. 29 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday deferred hearing for November 18 on a plea from AAP MLA Manjinder Singh Lalpura challenging his conviction in a 12-year-old molestation and assault case involving a woman from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. The bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya heard the arguments from the parties and deferred hearing without giving any interim relief to the AAP MLA, observing that when the disqualification process has not even been started by the vidhan sabha, there was no need for judicial intervention. Due to this conviction, Lalpura faces disqualification as MLA if the conviction is not stayed by the high court. Legislator from Khadoor Sahib, Lalpura, was awarded four years in prison by a Tarn Taran court on September 10. The court awarded the sentence to the sitting MLA under the SC/ST Act for four years, three years under Section 354, one year under Section 506, and one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court had convicted six others also. According to the prosecution, the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, was assaulted by the accused, including Lalpura and some cops from the Tarn Taran police, on March 3, 2013. The incident took place when the complainant, along with her family members, came to a marriage palace on Goindwal Road for a function. At that time, Lalpura was a taxi driver. Earlier, Lalpura's counsel had submitted that the petitioner could be disqualified if the conviction is not stayed. If the disqualification is triggered and by-elections are conducted, then it would result in consequences with irreversible harm to the appellant, as the same cannot be undone if the appellant is acquitted at a later stage, the court was told. Lalpura, in his plea, has claimed 'false implication', adding that it was due to a property dispute with one of the relatives of the complainant. The offences under the SC/ST Act are not made out as the complainant procured a caste certificate in 2018, and there is no evidence of the petitioner having knowledge about the caste of the complainant woman, the plea argues....