TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk for defrauding the bank to the tune of about ₹ 2 lakhs. The Central Bureau of Investigation inquired into the matter. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and his other co-employees, for offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act) and Section 120, 201 and 420 of IPC. A Special Judge at Patiala conducted the trial for such offences and at the end found the appellant and some of the co-accused guilty for different counts of offences. For the purpose of this appeal we need mention about the sentence of only one count. He was sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/- for the offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is against the said conviction and sentence that he preferred the appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court admitted the appeal and as mentioned earlier suspended the sentence passed on him. After the judgment was pronounced by the trial court disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and on the strength of the conviction mentioned above the authorities of the bank dismissed him from service. Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposition from the following observations made by this Court in Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. {2001 (4) SCC 355}: Appeal being a statutory right, the trial courts verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the appeal and for that purpose his trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction. By the said observation this Court did not mean that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court would remain in limbo automatically when they are challenged in appeal. The said observation was made in a different context altogether when notice of the executive government was drawn to the need to appoint requisite number of judges to cope up with the increased pressure on the existing judicial apparatus, and for highlighting the consequences of non-filling existing vacancies of judges in the High Courts. We are unable to appreciate how the said observation can be culled out of the said context for the purpose of using it in a different context altogether such as this where the convicted accused is seeking to have an order of conviction suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) deals with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of the Court is not invited to this specific consequence which is likely to fall upon conviction how can it be expected to assign reasons relevant thereto? No one can be allowed to play hide and seek with the Court; he cannot suppress the precise purpose for which he seeks suspension of the conviction and obtain a general order of stay and then contend that the disqualification has ceased to operate. The legal position, therefore, is this: Though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal in challenge of the conviction the court should not suspend the operation of the order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the above legal position that we have to examine the question as to what should be the position when a public servant is convicted of an offence under the PC Act. No doubt when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision. We are fortified in holding so by two other decisions of this Court. One is Deputy Director of Collegiate Education vs. S. Nagoor Meera {1995 (3) SCC 377}. The following ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
