Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2576 (RAJ)

Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-26

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant Pappu Ram Gujar and learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The Counsel for the applicant-appellant has filed this application under Section 482, CrPC, for staying the conviction of the applicant-appellant passed by the impugned Judgment dated 21.05.2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.2, Sikar (Camp Neem Ka Thana) in Sessions Case No. 7/2004. He submits that after hearing all the parties including Counsel for the complainant, the sentence of the applicant-appellant was suspended vide order dated 010.2004. He further submits that the petitioners are now going to be removed from service because of conviction recorded by the trial Court. He also submits that applicant-appellant is only person who is bread earner in the family. He has also read out the statements of prosecution witness to show that prima facie conviction of the applicant-appellant recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The appeal has already been admitted which is pending for hearing. He has also referred the Judgment of this Court in Lakhsman Lal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) RCC 27 wherein this Honble Court considered the Judgment s of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1995 (2) SCC 513 and 2001 (4) JT 40 (SC) and stayed the conviction of the accused. 3. The Counsel for the complainant opposed the application and in support of argument placed reliance on State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Jagannathan and on that basis submits that conviction of appellant should not be stayed. 4. In Lakshman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P., 2001 (4) JT 40 (SC), wherein it was held that appeal being statutory right, the trial Courts verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the 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 the appellant. In such cases, trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction. Their Lordships kept in abeyance the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 5 In State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Jagannathan (Supra), which was a case relating to the offence under Sections 392, 218 and 466, IPC and also under Prevention of Corruption Act and in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that in every case conviction cannot be suspended to avoid disadvantage to the accused. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment in the light of the arguments urged on behalf of the applicant-appellant. 7. After considering the submissions and the prosecution evidence, I am satisfied that this is a fit case wherein the conviction of the applicant-appellant is liable to be stayed. 8. Accordingly, this stay application is allowed. The conviction of the applicant-appellant passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.2, Sikar (Camp Neem Ka Thana) vide Judgment dated 21.05.2003 shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.