JODHPUR, May 3 -- The Rajasthan high court on Friday upheld the conviction of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA from Anta, Kanwar Lal Meena, in a 20-year-old criminal case, in which he was accused of threatening an election officer with a revolver. The court dismissed his criminal revision petition and affirmed the three-year sentence imposed by the additional sessions court in Aklera. The development casts a shadow on Meena's chances of continuing as a legislator. Under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any member of Parliament or member of a state legislative assembly is liable to be disqualified from holding office if convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. To be sure, the disqualification takes immediate effect, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), which clarified that such disqualification is automatic and cannot be postponed by merely filing an appeal or seeking a stay on the sentence. However, if a higher court stays the conviction itself - not just the sentence - then the disqualification may be reversed. The disqualification remains in force not only for the duration of the sentence but also for an additional period of six years following the release from prison. Meena had filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the appellate court. While the trial court had initially acquitted him, the additional sessions judge partially reversed the order, finding him guilty under Sections 353 (assault to deter a public servant from duty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act. The judgment was upheld by a single bench of justice Uma Shanker Vyas on Friday. The case dates back to February 3, 2005, villagers blocked a road near Dhangipura-Rajgarh turn, about 2km from Manoharpur police station, to demand a repoll to elect the deputy sarpanch of Khatakhedi. During this agitation, Meena arrived at the spot and joined the villagers. When an election official approached him to hold a discussion, he trained a revolver at him and threatened him. Despite the presence of senior police officers, no first information report (FIR) was registered immediately. It was only after the submission of a written complaint through official channels that an FIR was lodged on February 9, 2005. Meena was also booked under Sections 392 (robbery), 332 (causing hurt to deter a public servant), besides 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. In 2018, the trial court acquitted Meena. However, following appeals by both the complainant and the state government, the additional sessions judge at Aklera reversed the acquittal on December 14, 2020, convicting him under Sections 353, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. According to the prosecution, Meena threatened an election official with a gun, and destroyed video evidence. The defence, however, argued there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies and claimed the case was politically motivated. Rejecting these claims, justice Vyas held that the conviction was based on the consistent and credible testimony of government officials present during the incident. The court acknowledged delays in registering the FIR and in Meena's arrest, but ruled that these did not undermine the core of the prosecution's case. It also dismissed the allegation of political vendetta, noting that there was no evidence suggesting the complainant - a government officer - acted under any political influence. "The decision of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court is in accordance with the available evidence and material," the bench observed. "No important fact or legal provision has been overlooked by the appellate court, nor has it relied on any extraneous material," it added. The court concluded, "There was sufficient and proper material on record to convict the accused under Sections 353, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act."...