Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 705 (AP)

A. v. V. Satyanarayana VS State Of A. P.

2001-07-11

D.S.R.VERMA

body2001
D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) ALL the above three petitions arise out of Common order in C. C. No. 53 of 1990 on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur dated 26-11-2000. Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2001 is filed against the order in Crl. M. P. No. 881 of 2001 in Crl. A. No. 625 of 2000, dated 15-6-2001 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2001 is filed against the order in Crl. M. P. No. 880 of 2001 in Crl. A. No. 598 of 2001. Criminal Petition No. 2696 of 2001 is filed to modify the order of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl. M. P. No. 1766 of 2000 in C. A. No. 595 of 2000. As the three petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the accused in C. C. No. 53 of 1990. The offence is alleged to have been committed under Sections 120-B, 381, 411, 414, 420 and 120 of IPC. By order dated 26-11-2000, the trial Court imposed conviction to the accused. Against the said order of conviction, the accused/petitioners filed Crl. A. No. 625 of 2000, Crl. A. No. 598 of 2001, C. A. No. 595 of 2000 seeking suspension of the order of conviction. ( 3 ) NOW the only question that arise for consideration before this Court is whether the Court has the jurisdiction under Section 389 (1), Cr. P. C. to suspend the order of conviction. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti and G. Mohan Rao drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, 1995 (2) SCC 513 , wherein it is held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 (1), Cr. P. C. to suspend the order of conviction. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti and G. Mohan Rao drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, 1995 (2) SCC 513 , wherein it is held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 (1), Cr. P. C. , the High Court has jurisdiction to suspend the conviction also and further observed that"in a fit case if the High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted person does not suffer from a certain disqualification provided for in any other statute, it may exercise the power because, otherwise the damage done cannot be undone, the disqualification incurred by Sec. 267 of the Companies Act and given effect to cannot be undone at a subsequent date if the conviction is set aside by the Appellate Court. But while granting a stay of suspension of the order of conviction the Court must examine the pros and cons and if it feels satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such an order, it may do so and in so doing it may, if it considers it appropriate, impose such conditions as are considered appropriate to protect the interest of the shareholders and the business of the company. " ( 5 ) THE Honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan, (1996) 5 SCC 329 : (1996 Cri LJ 3495), while clarifying the ratio laid down in Rama Narang s case (supra) observed as under :"but in the present, we find that in the event the revisions against their conviction and sentences are allowed by the High Court the damage, if any, caused to the respondents with regard to payment of stipend etc. , can well reviewed and made good to the respondents. If such trifling matters are taken into consideration, we think, then every conviction will have to be suspended pending appeal or revision involving the slightest disadvantage to a convict". ( 6 ) FROM above observations, it is clear that under Section 389 (1) of the Cr. , can well reviewed and made good to the respondents. If such trifling matters are taken into consideration, we think, then every conviction will have to be suspended pending appeal or revision involving the slightest disadvantage to a convict". ( 6 ) FROM above observations, it is clear that under Section 389 (1) of the Cr. P. C. , the conviction can also be suspended to, but the main criteria indicated is that the damage by virtue of the conviction done, if cannot be undone at a future date, the Court can suspend the conviction also. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the petitioners appears to be Government servants involved in a case of leakage of question papers and they are likely to be removed from service by virtue of conviction, though the sentence has been suspended. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submit that this is an appropriate case, where suspension of the conviction may be granted because the petitioners services are likely to be affected. ( 9 ) THIS submission cannot be accepted for the reason that even if the services of the petitioners are affected in any manner, eventually in the event of the conviction and sentence being set aside, they are bound to be reinstated into the service. In other words, the damage which is likely to be caused or caused will certainly be compensated by reinstatement in the event of their succeeding in the appeal. Before seeking the relief under Section 389 the petitioners shall have to necessarily establish, prima facie, firstly what is the damage caused or likely to be caused and secondly such damage cannot be corrected/rectified at a later stage, in the event of his success in the appeal or revision. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the damage that is caused or likely to be caused would only be tentative but not conclusive. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners further submit that some other accused have been granted the relief of suspension of the conviction by this Court. ( 11 ) THAT cannot be a ground for the petitioners to seek the same relief in these cases also in view of the Judgments referred in 1995 (2) SCC 513 and 1996 Cri LJ 3495 (supra ). ( 11 ) THAT cannot be a ground for the petitioners to seek the same relief in these cases also in view of the Judgments referred in 1995 (2) SCC 513 and 1996 Cri LJ 3495 (supra ). ( 12 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submitted that the orders of suspension of their conviction in the applications made by some other accused were granted on 7-2-2001 and the learned single Judge while granting suspension of the conviction in Crl. R. C. No. 113 of 2001 in Crl. M. P. No. 493 of 2001 directed to post the matter for final hearing in the first week of April, 2001. ( 13 ) FOR the above reasons, I do not find any valid reason to suspend the conviction. In the result all the three petitions i. e. , Criminal Revision Case Nos. 726, 727 of 2001 and Crl. P. No. 2696 of 2001 are dismissed. However, the Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order on priority basis. Petitions dismissed.