JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The appellants have prayed for suspending the order of conviction dated 29.08.2006, passed by the learned trial court against them for the offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier during the pendency of this Appeal, both the appellants were granted bail in the present criminal Appeal. The prayer for suspending the order of conviction of the appellants has been made on the following grounds: (i) That pursuant to the acquisition of the lands belonging to the appellants by the Bokaro Steel Plant and under the Scheme of acquisition, the appellant No. 2 is entitled to get employment in the Bokaro Steel Plant for which he has submitted his application in the prescribed format and the order of his conviction would jeopardize his prospects of obtaining employment, (ii) That the appellant No. 2 is also desirous of contesting the elections to the Gram Panchayat but under the provisions of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, a person cannot contest the election, if he has been convicted and sentenced for a period of more than six months and, as such, the order of conviction against the appellant would prevent him from contesting the elections. (iii) That on merits of the case, both the appellants deserve to be acquitted, since the conviction was based entirely on the testimony of the informant, who was himself a person having a criminal history and whose testimony has been proved false against the co-accused persons, who had faced the trial. 2. Highlighting the above grounds, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have a very fair chance of succeeding in the appeal and since the appeal is not likely to be taken up. at an early date for hearing, the order of their conviction for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. would cause them irreparable injury and prejudice to their career and future prospects. In support of his prayer, learned Counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr. . 3. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the appellants have not made out any exceptional ground for suspending the order of their conviction and that the appellants have not brought out any specific consequences that would befall them on account of the conviction. . 3. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the appellants have not made out any exceptional ground for suspending the order of their conviction and that the appellants have not brought out any specific consequences that would befall them on account of the conviction. 4. It is relevant to note that both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. by the trial court. 5. The question, which needs to be addressed is whether the appellants have made out sufficient grounds for suspending the order of their conviction. 6. In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (Supra), the apex Court had an occasion to consider this case under Section 389(1), Cr.P.C. and to explain as follows: Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. confers power not only to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant bail but also to suspend the operation of the order appealed against which means the order of conviction. Thus an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case. 7. It may be noted here that the facts of the above case are totally in a different context as compared to the facts of the instant case. 8. In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (Supra), the petitioner was earlier a member of parliament and he resigned from the membership of Lok Sabha on being convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II and under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Subsequently, intending to remain in public life, he had wanted to contest the elections again and to enable him, he had sought for suspension of his conviction for the aforesaid offences. After discussing the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act the apex Court had though allowed the prayer but has laid down that the power to stay the conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. If his also teen clarified that an order granting stay of conviction is an exception to be resorted to in rather exceptional cases, depending upon the facts of the case. For the purpose of decision on the prayer made by the appellant for staying or suspending the order of conviction, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case in detail. Suffice it to state that the conviction of the appellants was for the offences under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. was made by the trial court on the basis of the testimony of the injured/informant read with the medical evidence. The allegation being that both the appellants had shot at the informant with fire arms, causing injuries to him. The intrinsic value of the evidences on records is not called upon for scrutiny and evaluation at this stage. 9. The grounds taken by the appellants is that the appellant No. 2 being entitled for employment under the Bokaro Steel Ltd., had submitted his application for the sale/SAIL and further, that he desires to contest the Gram Panchayat elections in future. 10. A copy of the application in prescribed format purported to have been submitted by the appellant No. 2 to the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant is filed as Annexure-2. It contains several columns of queries to be filled up by the applicant. The application containing two pages with as many as 14 columns does not need the applicant to specify regarding his antecedents and as to whether he has suffered any conviction from any court of law for any offence. The appellant has not brought anything on record to suggest that the order of conviction would disentitle him from the employment sought for. As regards the other claim of the application that the appellant No. 2, that he is desirous to contest the elections for Gram Panchayat, a copy of the proforma application (Annexure-3) has been filed. It is not claimed by the appellant No. 2 that he had ever contested any elections for any post or public office in the past. As regards the other claim of the application that the appellant No. 2, that he is desirous to contest the elections for Gram Panchayat, a copy of the proforma application (Annexure-3) has been filed. It is not claimed by the appellant No. 2 that he had ever contested any elections for any post or public office in the past. He has also no stated as to whether any date has been declared by the Government for conducting the Panchayat elections or even for submission of candidature by the persons desirous of contesting the elections. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the appellants have made out any special case or any specific consequences that would fall on account of their conviction. 13. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this Interlocutory application. Accordingly, the prayer for suspending the conviction of the appellants is hereby rejected. 14. LA. disposed of.