Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 502 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-02-22

HARBANS LAL

body2008
JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- Balbir Singh petitioner has moved an application under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) read with Section 482 of the Code for suspension of his conviction during the pendency of the revision petition on the ground that he is serving as a Science Master in Government Senior Secondary School, Kapoor Pind, Near Jandu Singha, District Jalandhar on regular basis. Earlier, on account of his conviction, he was placed under suspension. After his conviction, when he preferred an appeal, vide order dated 6.6.2007, his conviction was stayed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. After the dismissal of his appeal, the said order automatically goes. The petitioner now apprehends that in view of dismissal of his appeal, the department will dismiss him from service. The present offence does not fall within the ambit of moral turpitude. In these circumstances, his conviction be stayed during the pendency of the revision petition. 2. The respondents have not filed reply to this application. 3. On 1.2.2008, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 stated that the petitioner has been dismissed from service. She was asked to produce copy of the dismissal order. The same has been filed. As per the Photostat copy of the order dated 21.12.2007, the petitioner stands dismissed from service. 4. I have heard Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S.Pannu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State as well as Ms J.J. Kaur, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that Gurdeep Kaur wife of the petitioner Balbir Singh had lodged a complaint under Section 406/498-A read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and his other relatives and the same culminated in their conviction and sentence and that the appeal carried to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, also met failure. He further puts that it is not a case of moral turpitude and if the conviction of the petitioner is not suspended, he will not be able to maintain himself and that being so his conviction may be stayed. He further puts that it is not a case of moral turpitude and if the conviction of the petitioner is not suspended, he will not be able to maintain himself and that being so his conviction may be stayed. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in re: Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another, [2007(1) Law Herald (SC) 595 : 2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)] :2007 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 836; Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 799, Ram Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 336] : 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 201 and K. Bhagyanath v. State, 2003(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 145. 6. To tide over these submissions, Mr. K.S.Pannu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab as well as Ms J.J. Kaur, counsel for respondent no.2 submitted in one voice that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service vide order dated 21.12.2007 and if the conviction is stayed, he will hold the public office which is unwarranted by law and, as such, no case is made out for staying his conviction. 7. I have well considered the rival contentions. 8. It is pertinent to point out here that the respondents have not filed any reply. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced on the basis of a complaint filed against him and his other relatives by his own wife containing the allegations that they used to ill treat, torture her and they have criminally misappropriated the dowry articles. 9. The ramifications of the case are not that serious. In re: Roop Singh (supra), the accused was convicted under Section 307 of IPC and after his conviction, he was dismissed from service. Conviction was suspended during the pendency of appeal. In that case, it has been observed that there are unlikely to be any complex or unwelcome consequences of conviction on the applicant’s functioning as a public servant. There was no element of sleaze of or corruption in what he did. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced on the basis of such allegations which too often are levelled by the wife against husband and his relatives. There was no element of sleaze of or corruption in what he did. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced on the basis of such allegations which too often are levelled by the wife against husband and his relatives. In re: Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra), the law laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. S.Jaganathan, (1996) 5 SCC 329 and K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh, ( 2001) 6 SCC 584 was relied upon by counsel for the respondents. The Apex Court observed that these cases have no application to the facts of the present case as both of them related to conviction on charges of corruption and in that context, it was observed that when conviction is on a corruption charge, it would be a sublime public policy that the convicted person is kept under disability of conviction instead of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. In such cases, it is obvious that it would be highly improper to suspend the order of conviction of a public servant which would enable him to occupy the same office which he misused. This is not the case here. 11. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the dispute on account of alleged non-return of dowry and harassment led to the conviction of the petitioner as well as his relatives. In this case the ; petitioner has not earned conviction on account of misuse of his office. In re: Ram Singh and others (supra), the accused was convicted under Section 323 of IPC. The conviction was stayed during the pendency of the revision petition. Here in the present case also the petitioner has preferred revision against the judgment dated 7.12.2007 vide which the appeal preferred against judgment dated 9.8.2006 has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. In the 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. In cases Ram Singh and others and Roop Singh (supra) also the petitioner was dismissed from service, after conviction. In re: K. Bhagyanath (supra), the accused being a bank employee, was convicted for cheating. In cases Ram Singh and others and Roop Singh (supra) also the petitioner was dismissed from service, after conviction. In re: K. Bhagyanath (supra), the accused being a bank employee, was convicted for cheating. His conviction was suspended with the observations that non suspension of conviction could entail serious consequences of dismissal of accused from service. In Retti Deenabandu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 SCC (Criminal) 173, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “ A convicted person challenging his conviction in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out.” 12. In view of the preceding discussion, this application is allowed and conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court under Sections 406/498-A of IPC vide judgment dated 9.8.2006 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 7.12.2007 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the revision petition. ———————