Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1981 (RAJ)

Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-14

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2011
Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that the accused-applicant by judgment and order dated 29.2.1996 was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 15/93 by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bharatpur and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Against the judgment and order dated 29.2.1996, the applicant filed SB Criminal Appeal No. 182/1996 before this Court and the sentence passed by the learned Court below was suspended by this Court vide order dated 22.3.1996 in SB Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 199/1996. In this case the applicant has been found guilty of accepting gratification of Rs. 200/- while discharging his duties as a Junior Engineer in Panchayat Samiti, Sawai Madhopur. 3. This application for stay of conviction has been filed on the premise that vide order dated 21.5.1993 the applicant was put under suspension by the reason that when he was on duty, caught red handed for taking gratification and after a period of 18 years he has been removed from service under Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on the premise that he has been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 29.2.1996. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even in corruption cases also the Appellate Court in a suitable case may stay the operation of order of conviction. He has further submitted that during suspension period the applicant was getting subsistence allowance, but after the order of removal from service there is no source of earning/income available to the applicant so as to maintain himself and his family members. It was also submitted that order of conviction can also be stayed even after an order of removal from service is passed by the department concerned. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Jagdish Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan reported in WLN (UC) 1982 14, Dr. It was also submitted that order of conviction can also be stayed even after an order of removal from service is passed by the department concerned. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Jagdish Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan reported in WLN (UC) 1982 14, Dr. Trilochan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1983 RLR 77 , Om Prakash vs. RSRTC, Jaipur reported in 1983 RLW 77, Jamaludin vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 1983 RLR 407, Pravinkumar Paraskumar Gokhroo vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2010 (2) Crimes 265 (Guj) and Laxman Lal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2006(1) RLW 121. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor by opposing the prayer made on behalf of the applicant has submitted that in corruption case the order of conviction can never he suspended by the appellate Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, gone through the material made available to me and also the relevant case law, which is as follows: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh : (2001) 6 SCC 584 , has held as under: "Power to suspend conviction should be exercised by the Appellate or Revisional Court in very exceptional cases having regard to all aspects including ramifications of such suspension. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal to challenge his conviction the court should not suspend the operation of the order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that: "When conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant, the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that: "When conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant, the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision." It was also held that: "When a public servant is found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servant once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest which suffers and sometimes, even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. Hence, it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level." The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan : 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 735, after relying upon various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "For seeking suspension of conviction, the applicant is required to show special reasons and in our opinion the natural consequence of conviction cannot be a special reason. Natural consequence of conviction is to face the sentence, if not suspended by the order of the Court and to face the lawful consequence because of conviction. Natural consequence of conviction is to face the sentence, if not suspended by the order of the Court and to face the lawful consequence because of conviction. If the service rules have been framed for taking action against the convict then it is also a natural consequence of conviction, which empowers the employer to take action against the convict. Legislature wisdom framed the rule to keep the convict out of job consciously, conscious of fact that convict may challenge his conviction by preferring appeal or revision as the case may be and appellate or revisional Court may suspend the conviction, yet has framed the rule that action against employee can be taken on employee's conviction irrespective of fact whether the conviction is subjudice before the appellate Court." It was also observed by the Division Bench that: "If only because of reason that the convict will be put to out of job and it will effect adversely to family of the convict and there is no chance of early disposal of convicts appeal by the appellate Court then in all cases, the Court will have to stay the conviction and that will made the rule under which action can be taken by the employer of public employment as redundant and in view of the Apex Court's decision given in Deepak Matuu's case above grounds are not sufficient to grant suspension of sentence." The Hon'ble Court has also observed that: "The service rules have been framed purposefully so that normally convict may not and should not continue in the service and, therefore, when legislature itself has framed the rules for taking action against convict then normally there is no reason for not allowing the Government to take action permissible by the service rules. It is necessary that public post must be occupied by clean persons. If conviction is stayed so that a tinted, rather a convict may continue in job during period of appeal, which according to the petitioner himself may remain pending for several years and even for decades." It was also observed that: "Unblemished service record and chance of promotion itself cannot be ground for suspension of conviction in all the cases." 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present case is not a fit case in which the order of conviction is required to be stayed. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present case is not a fit case in which the order of conviction is required to be stayed. It is clear that if the public servant is found guilty of corruption by a Court of law he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate or revisional court should not stay the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal. Looking to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the prayer made on behalf of the applicant is liable to be rejected. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra) has held that natural consequence of conviction is to face the sentence, if not suspended by the order of the Court and to face the lawful consequence because of conviction. If the service rules have been framed for taking action against the convict then it is also a natural consequence, which empowers the employer to take action against the convict. When legislature itself has framed the rules for taking action against convict then normally there is no reason for not allowing the Government to take action permissible by the service rules. It is for the person who is seeking relief from the Court on the ground of special reasons to plead and prove existence of special reasons. I do not find any special reason for stay of conviction of the applicant from the facts of the case and if look into ramifications of stay of conviction of applicant, I find from the facts that consequence of stay conviction may damage the public faith. So far as the case of Pravinkumar Paraskumar Gokhroo (supra), it was found by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that there are several circumstances prima facie in favour of the accused-applicant of that case including the fact that the complainant of that case turned hostile before the trial Court and he admitted that the applicant did not demand any bribe. So far as the case of Pravinkumar Paraskumar Gokhroo (supra), it was found by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that there are several circumstances prima facie in favour of the accused-applicant of that case including the fact that the complainant of that case turned hostile before the trial Court and he admitted that the applicant did not demand any bribe. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also found that prima facie appears to be a case wherein morale of an honest officer and such other officers is more likely to be affected, if the conviction is eventually set aside but the officer is removed from the service in the meantime. In the present case, the facts situation is not like this thus, the case of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is not helpful to the applicant. So far as the case of Laxman Lal & Anr. (supra) is concerned, it does not appear that the case was regarding conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, the other cases relied upon by the applicant are of no help to him by the reason that in those cases question of stay of conviction was not considered but the order of removal from service was challenged by the concerned employee by means of a writ petition on the ground that during pendency of appeal order of removal cannot be passed. 8. Consequently, the application for stay of conviction being devoid of any substance is, hereby, dismissed.