Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. This application is moved by Roop Singh appellant praying for suspension of conviction. He stands convicted along with his co-accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 11.6.2003 under Sections 307/452/148/149 IPC in case bearing FIR No. 153 dated 13.11.1995, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. The substantive sentence awarded to the present applicant has already been suspended vide order dated 23.7.2003. 2. It is stated by Mr. Saggu, that the applicant was working as Field Officer with Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Malerkotla at the time of alleged occurrence; that after the conviction he has now been dismissed from service; that his co-convicts namely Gurpal Singh and Bahadur Singh were also employed at that time and their services were also terminated; that after getting the concession of suspension of sentence, the aforesaid co-convicts knocked at the door of this Court by filing Crl. Misc. Nos. 7021 of 2004 and 30320 of 2004 for suspension of conviction; that the said applications were allowed by this Court and it was ordered that their conviction shall remain stayed till final disposal of the appeal. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn attention to the order dated 27.7.2004. 3. Another fact, which has been brought to my notice, is that although the present applicant is shown to have fired a shot from his licensed gun at the complainant side, yet in the instant occurrence three persons from the appellants side have also received injuries, for which one of the appellants had filed a criminal complaint. The complainant side had, however, earned acquittal from the trial Court. An appeal against their acquittal was filed, which now stands admitted by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.4.2004. 4. Mr. Saggu on the basis of the aforesaid submissions contends that since the appeal against acquittal of the complainant side is already admitted by this Court, both the appeals have to be decided simultaneously and in that eventuality, the point for debate would be as to which side is aggressor and in case the order of conviction is suspended by this Court, he might be taken back in service. 5. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant relies upon a decision rendered by Honble the Apex Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, 2000(3) Recent Criminal Reports 718 (SC) and another order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. No. 50939 of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 474-SB of 2001 passed on 29.1.2002. 6. The respondent/State of Punjab has not filed any return to the instant petition. On 28.1.2005, the learned State counsel had made a request for adjournment to enable her to file reply. Till date, no reply has been filed. The learned State counsel seeks still more time for the same contending that the reply has not been sent by the concerned quarter. 7. I am not adjourning the case on this request. In the absence of reply, it is presumed that the State does not controvert at least the factual position. However, the learned State counsel contends that the case of Gurpal and Bahadur Singh is on different footing as they were not challaned by the police. In my view, this is certainly a case where the power to order suspension of conviction deserves to be exercised. The ramifications of the case are not that serious. There are unlikely to be any complex or unwelcome consequences of conviction on the applicants functioning as a public servant. There was no element of sleaze or corruption in what he did. He did not fight while on duty either with colleagues or members of the public. Applicant seems to have a fair chance of projecting this case of self-defence especially, when an appeal against acquittal of complainant side also stands admitted by this Court for final disposal. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the ratio of aforesaid two judgments, the present application is accepted and it is hereby directed that the conviction of the applicant- appellant Roop Singh as recorded by the trial Court shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the appeal. Application stands disposed of accordingly.