OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2008-3-47
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 25,2008

OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM NARANG VS. RAMESH NARANG AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
P.S.RAZIA VS. SATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
AKHTARI BI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K C SAREEN VS. C B I CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DEEPAK MATTU [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SURESH CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
T.AJITH KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2018-12-178] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

TATIA, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Public Prosecutor.
(2.)THE petitioner Om Prakash was working as Dy. Superintendent of Jail, Bikaner at the relevant time and was accused in the Sessions Case No. 12/2007 and faced the trial for committing offences under sections 120b, 148, 323 302/149 IPC. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 302, 147 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo six months imprisonment, under Section 147 IPC sentenced to two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month's imprison and under Section 323 IPC sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month's imprisonment. THE conviction and sentence were challenged by the petitioner-appellant by preferring D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 548/2007, which has already been admitted and the petitioner's sentence has been suspended on petitioner's bail application No. 1042/2007 by order dated 26th Oct. , 2007. THE petitioner has submitted this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for suspension of conviction order passed against the petitioner by the trial court dated 23rd June, 2007.
According to the petitioner after lodging FIR, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29. 2. 1996 because inquiry was contemplated, but the Government took a decision that this is not a case wherein inquiry is to be made and as such according to the petitioner, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental inquiry vide order dated 27th April, 2000. He was reinstated in service and all the arrears of the service benefits were paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police vide order dated 13th April, 2001. According to the petitioner his further promotion is due and his service has been exemplary and not a single adverse report is in the service record of the petitioner.

However, after conviction of the petitioner and award of sentence in the above said sessions case, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 20th July, 2007 and the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Government vide order Annex. 5.

According to the petitioner the only reason of dismissal of petitioner from service is that since the petitioner has been convicted and has been sentenced for life imprisonment and in petitioner's appeal against conviction and sentence only sentence has been suspended by the High Court and conviction has not been stayed. The petitioner has placed on record the order of his dismissal from service as Annex. 4.

According to the petitioner in identical facts and circumstances, this Court in D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 1590/2007 - Vijay Saxena Vs. State on application which was registered as D. B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 810/2007 suspended the conviction of the accused and petitioner's case is squarely covered by the above said order.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of P. S. Razia Vs. Sate of Bihar reported in 1996 Crl. L. R. (SC) 497 when Government servant is exonerated in departmental inquiry then criminal case is liable to be quashed. The petitioner in his petition also tried to submit that the order Annex. 4 is illegal and not sustainable in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred in the petitioner's petition.
In addition to the above, the petitioner's contention is that conduct of the petitioner in service is worth praising and petitioner's family circumstances warrants that conviction should be stayed because the petitioner has a family for which nobody is to support because the petitioner is the only person to take care his family members. The petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Caste and family of the petitioner is downtrodden.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that so far as suspension of conviction pending appeal is concerned, the court has power to suspend the conviction in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, but for suspension of conviction, there must exists some special reason and order of suspension of conviction cannot be passed merely because the appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence and in that appeal sentence has been suspended of the accused.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.