Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 250 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. State Of Haryana

2007-02-12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2007
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Applicant Pala Ram (Petitioner No. 9 in the revision petition) has filed this application under Section 482 read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) for suspension of the order of his conviction during the pendency of the revision petition. 2. The revision filed by Petitioner No. 9 along with other co-accused against their conviction and sentenced passed by JMIC, Bhiwani and upheld by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, was admitted by this Court on July 14, 2006. While admitting the revision, the sentence of the petitioners was ordered to be suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM, Bhiwani. 3. Petitioner No. 9 was working as JBT teacher in a Government Primary School. After his conviction, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.10.2006 only on the ground that he was convicted in the aforesaid case. The appeal filed by him against the said order is pending consideration before the competent Court. It is the case of the applicant-petitioner No. 9 that he was the only earning member in the family and from the salary he looked after his wife and children. It is further contended that actually petitioner No. 9 was falsely implicated along with the other persons in the aforesaid case in which he was alleged to have given one injury to Kalawati which is simple in nature and falls under Section 323 IPC. He contends that in case the order of conviction of the applicant is not suspended, the appeal filed by him against his termination would also be dismissed, therefore, the order of conviction qua him be stayed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court has ample power under Section 482 read with Sections 401 and 389 of the Code to suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the revision/appeal. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the order of conviction qua the applicant is not stayed and subsequently at the time of final hearing of the revision he is found innocent, then the damage done to Petitioner No. 9 cannot be undone. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the order of conviction qua the applicant is not stayed and subsequently at the time of final hearing of the revision he is found innocent, then the damage done to Petitioner No. 9 cannot be undone. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, 1995(2) SCC 513 and Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 836 (SC) : 2007(1) R.A.J. 310 : JT 2007(2) SCC 382. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment of this Court in Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 799 (P&H) and Tarsem Singh v. State Chandigarh Administration, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 831 (P&H), wherein the order of conviction passed against the accused was suspended during the pendency of the appeal/revision to save his dismissal from the service. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Jasminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 315 (P&H), wherein the order of conviction passed against the accused under Section 306 IPC was suspended to save the service of a Class-IV employee. 5. Counsel for the respondent-State could not dispute the factual position and did not cite any contrary judgment. 6. In Navjot Singh Sidhus case (supra), while relying upon the decision of Rama Narangs case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in a fit case if the 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 under Section 389(1) of the Code to suspend the sentence. However, it has been observed that an order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a particular case. Sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the Code confers power on the Appellate Court not only to suspend the execution of the sentence and grant bail but also the order of conviction. In view of Section 401 of the Code, the High Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction may exercise any of the powers conferred on the Court of appeal including under Section 389 of the Code. In view of Section 401 of the Code, the High Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction may exercise any of the powers conferred on the Court of appeal including under Section 389 of the Code. Thus, in this revision petition, the High Court has the same power to suspend the sentence as well as the conviction as being exercised by the Appellate Court under Section 389 of the Code. The Appellate/Revisional Court while granting a stay or suspension of the order of conviction is required to examine the pros and cons and if it feels satisfied that in case stay of conviction is not granted, it would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences, may suspend the order of conviction also. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I have examined the facts and circumstances in the present case. Along with eight other accused, Petitioner No. 9 has been convicted. At the time of the alleged occurrence, he was working as a JBT teacher. According to the prosecution version, he had caused one injury to Kalawati which is simple in nature. It is the case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the case because he was a government servant. After nine years of service, his services have been terminated only on the basis of the aforesaid conviction. That was his only source of income. If the conviction of the petitioner is not stayed, the applicant will not be able to maintain himself and his family. The revision filed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence has already been admitted and the same is not likely to be heard soon. The sentence awarded to the petitioners has already been suspended by this Court. In similar circumstances, this Court in Roop Singhs case (supra), Tarsem Singhs case (supra) and Jasminder Kaurs case (supra), has suspended the conviction of the accused under Sections 306, 307, 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. In Navjot Singh Sidhus case (supra) also, wherein the accused had been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-II IPC, the Supreme Court has suspended the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. In the instant case, the offence is less serious. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, if the conviction of the applicant is not stayed, it would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. 8. In the instant case, the offence is less serious. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, if the conviction of the applicant is not stayed, it would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and conviction of petitioner No. 9-Pala Ram recorded by the trial Court under Sections 148/149/323/325/326 and 506 IPC vide judgment dated 15.3.2004 and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 19.5.2006, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the revision petition.