JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, on the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a Government servant and at present working as Inspector, SCRB, Jaipur and he apprehends that because of the judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2002 passed by the learned trial court his services shall be dispensed with. In these circumstances, an application for suspension of sentence along with prayer that judgment of conviction be stayed has been moved under Section 389 Cr. P.C. 3. The accused appellant was convicted under Section 218 read with Section 120B IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. The learned trial court while exercising powers under Section 389(3) Cr. P.C. has already released the appellant on bail and suspended the sentence awarded to him. 4. The question that arises for consideration of this court is as to whether conviction can be suspended u/s.389 Cr. P.C. The answer is in affirmative that conviction can be suspended provided the conviction is executable. 5. In Kanhaiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 WLC (Raj.) 411 (D.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 652/2001 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 733/2000) decided on 21.7.2001 , the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relying upon a decision of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513 ) has held that the conviction is capable of execution, in a sense that it may result in termination of services of the appellant. 6. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (supra) the Apex Court propounded that what can be suspended under Section 389(1) is the execution of the sentence or the order appealed against. The order referred to in Section 389(1) must be an order capable of execution An order of conviction by itself is not capable of execution under the Code. It is the order of sentence or an order awarding compensation or imposing fine or release on probation which are capable of execution and which, if not suspended, would be required to be executed by the authorities. But in certain situation, the order of conviction can be executable, in the sense, it may incur a disqualification. In such a case the power under Section 389(1) could be invoked. But in certain situation, the order of conviction can be executable, in the sense, it may incur a disqualification. In such a case the power under Section 389(1) could be invoked. In such situation the attention of the appellate Court must be specifically invited to the consequence that it is likely to fall to enable it to apply its mind to the issue under Section 389(1) it is under an obligation to support its order 'for reasons to be recorded in writing'. 7. In a recent judgment rendered in Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. 9, JT 2001 (4) SC 40) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the appeal being a statutory right, the trial court's verdict does not attain finality during pendency of appeal. In such cases, trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction. Their Lordships kept in abeyance the order of conviction and sentence passed against Smt. Akhtari Bi. 8. It is thus clear that where the effect of the order of conviction entails disqualification from contesting the election or termination from services, the appellate court on a specific request made in this regard by the convict, may suspend the conviction after assigning the reasons. The appellate court may suspend the order of conviction under Section 389(1) Cr. P.C. where it is capable of execution. 9. In the case in hand, the appellant apprehends that because of passing of judgment of conviction, his services shall be terminated without even giving him notice. It is thus evident that till date no departmental action has been initiated to terminate the services of the appellant and no notice before termination of his service has been issued to the appellant. In my opinion, the prayer of the appellant, in the absence of there being any disciplinary action resulting into termination of services, is premature. Unless there is anything on record to suggest that because of the order of conviction, his services shall be terminated, it would not be appropriate to entertain the prayer for suspension of conviction. In my view no case is made out for suspension of order of conviction. 10. Consequently, the prayer for staying the judgment of conviction is rejected. 11. Unless there is anything on record to suggest that because of the order of conviction, his services shall be terminated, it would not be appropriate to entertain the prayer for suspension of conviction. In my view no case is made out for suspension of order of conviction. 10. Consequently, the prayer for staying the judgment of conviction is rejected. 11. However question as to the suspension of sentence is concerned having considered the judgment under appeal and taking into consideration the fact that the sentence of 1 year awarded to the appellant has already been suspended by the trial court, I consider it proper to suspend the sentence. 12. It is therefore, ordered that the sentence awarded to accused appellant Ikram Ali S/o Sh. Aladin shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one sound surety of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, with the stipulation to appear in this court on 23.3.2002 and whenever called upon to do so. *******