JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Respondent is a public servant. He was proceeded against in a case
under Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to one and a half
years (18 months) rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand Only) was also imposed upon him by Special Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. He preferred an appeal thereagainst marked as
Criminal Appeal No. 1022-SB/04. In the said appeal, an application was
filed by the respondent for suspending of conviction purported to be under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By reason of the
Order dated 11.1.2005, learned Judge of the Special Court allowed the said
application holding;
"I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant-appellant
Deepak Mattu and Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
appearing for the respondent on an application moved
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of conviction
recorded under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
The sentence of the appellant has already been
suspended. He is working as Junior Engineer in Punjab
State Electricity Board. It is argued that if his conviction
is not suspended, he may have to face dismissal from
service. Three flaws in the impugned judgment have
been pointed out. Firstly, that shadow witness has not
been examined; secondly, that the alleged demand was of
Rs. 2000/- and this bribe money was allegedly paid but at
the time of recovery, only an amount of Rs. 1900/- was
recovered; and thirdly, there is no corroboration to the
demand in as much as the complaint alone proved the
same and the shadow witness in whose presence it was
made has not been examined.
It will take a long time to decide the appeal. There are
fairly good points to argue. This application is allowed
and the conviction of the appellant is suspended during
the pendency of the appeal."
(3.)An application was filed by the appellant herein for vacation of stay of
conviction granted to him by reason of the said order with a prayer to recall
the same, whereby the Court's attention was drawn to a judgment of this
Court in K. C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584]. By
reason of the impugned judgment while the Court accepted that an order
suspending the conviction could be allowed only in a very exceptional case,
dismissed the application of stay holding;
"The present petition is not maintainable. Order dated
11.1.2005 can neither be reviewed nor recalled. It was
passed in the presence of the Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab, who represented the respondent-State. The merits
of the case were considered. It was considered that it
will take a long time to decide the appeal and there are
fairly good points to be argued. Hence, application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the conviction of
the appellant recorded under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act was suspended during
pendency of appeal. There is no blanket bar imposed on
the Appellate Court to grant stay of conviction in
corruption cases. After going through the 'grounds of
appeal' and the contents of the application moved under
Section 389 Cr.P.C., it was considered that it was an
exceptional case. Hence, the conviction was stayed
during pendency of the appeal. Sentenced imposed on
the appellant had already been stayed. Now, there exists
no reason, either for vacation of the order dated
11.1.2005 or to review/recall the same."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.