Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 327 (RAJ)

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-01

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-Applicant-appellant Dinesh who is a Government servant, has sought stay of the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon him on 15.05.2002 in Sessions Case No. 24/2001 (38/2000) whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years. The sentence imposed upon him has already been suspended vide order dated 211.2005. But, he has since been removed from service as per Annexure-1. 2. His learned Counsel has contended on the strength of Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. JT 2001 (4) SC 40 that the appeal being a statutory right the trial Courts verdict does not attain finality during the pendency of the appeal and the trial shall be deemed to be continue despite conviction. It is further submitted that in view of the pronouncement of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 513 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 652/2001 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 73/2000, it is clearly held that where the conviction is capable of execution the same may be stayed on a specific request being made in this regard by the convict in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. According to him, his appeal is likely to take a pretty long period before it is finally adjudicated and the conviction in the instant case is capable of execution. He has, therefore, prayed that the conviction of the applicant may also be stayed so that he may not be visited with further adverse consequence flowing from the order of termination and may if possible seek remedy in this regard by taking record to proper legal proceedings under the law. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has though opposed the application but neither he could point out anything from the record nor could cite, any authority taking contrary view in such matters. He has simply submitted that the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of at an early date. 4. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has though opposed the application but neither he could point out anything from the record nor could cite, any authority taking contrary view in such matters. He has simply submitted that the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of at an early date. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and keeping in view the settled legal position in this behalf as also the fact that there is no immediate prospect of his appeal being heard and disposed of in near further and the appeal is continuance of the trial, which has yet not attained finality, I deem it just and proper to stay the conviction of the applicant-appellant recorded against him. 5. Consequently, this stay application under Section 389, CrPC, is allowed and it is directed that the order of conviction dated 15.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar in Sessions Case No. 24/2001 (38/2000) is hereby stayed till the disposal of the criminal appeal.